Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/12

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Wireless Gigabit Alliance (Q719462)

I have recently split an article from one of the entry in this wikidata item but I have absolutely no idea how should I handle the interwiki links and their wikidata entry.

Currently there are three different things in the wikidata item. 1. IEEE 802.11ad, 2. WiGig, 3. Wireless Gogabit alliance.

Their relationship is like this:

  1. WiGig is a name created to market IEEE 802.11ad
  2. However the name WiGig will also be used on other upcoming standards like IEEE 802.11ay
  3. The name WiGig was created and promoted by an alliance established for the purpose which is known as Wireless Gigabit Alliance, however the alliance have been subsumed.

How to put all of these rationally in wikidata link? Also, all the wikidata description for that item doesn't seems to make much sense either. C933103 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

At least create a new item for IEEE 802.11ad and move the relevant site links there. A wireless protocol is a different thing to a trade association, e.g., we already have IEEE 802.11a-1999 (Q1421681) and Wi-Fi Alliance (Q1361045). WiGig can also be a separate item if it doesn't correspond exactly to IEEE 802.11ad. Ghouston (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Separated.C933103 (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Ghouston (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with wikidata list


I have a problem with that list: Can the date be in the form DD-MM-YYYY and not in the form YYYY-MM-DD?

Xaris333 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Goals / targets / KPIs

Hi folks,

do you also have the requirement in other domains to map Goals or targets to (key performance) indicators?

Michael Cieslik (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Vickery (Q3472703)

I am unable to add enwiki:Vickery. I get the following error:

<no wiki> Could not save due to an error. The save has failed. The link enwiki:Vickery is already used by Item Q54815426. You may remove it from Q54815426 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic.</nowiki>

I don't know how to remove the existing item. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to do either. I see correct sitelinks on both given items. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

John McCain (Q10390) and position held (P39)

Currently {{#property:P39|from=Q10390}} reads

"United States senator, United States representative, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator "


It used to be just "United States senator". This despite that the full information currently cluttered in the many new segments was already available for those querying. The new statements are practically useless and don't have any advantage over the previous one, except that it may suit some non-WMF datauser's database structure.

Apparently, for some countries, a separate statement is made for each election when the corresponding senate database is structured that way (not the US, AFAIK), but here it is made into 1 statement for every two year. I think we should restore the more sane structure initially added by Louperivois (talkcontribslogs)'s bot to many politician's pages. --- Jura 06:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It's important for these things to be consistent. I think it should only be changed back if all such items are standardized on the format. --Yair rand (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hasn't this been discussed several time already? And isn't the more precise the better? (aggregating separate data is easy and trivial, segregate is hard and often almost impossible) Ping @Andrew Gray: who worked on this subject. VIGNERON (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether we should have 14 statements for McCain, or a smaller number (three?) to align with the number of six-year terms, is an open question - the US Senate is a bit weird and I don't know what work has been done there. But some number of separate terms is definitely the most common way to model this data. One entry works as a stopgap but multiple entries are much better for being able to do detailed reports. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There is actually no need for more than one statement, if the query is done correctly. At least, afaik. For senators, the standard is to do one statement, at least, until someone did some splits recently. --- Jura 10:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
In general, I think multiple statements is the better option for elected offices over multiple terms, with some situations where single statements work best (eg I am working on using single statements for UK members of the Lords). Having said that, the US Senate is complicated and I don't think it neatly fits into either case - both approaches have good and bad points.
  • A single statement avoids implying that he was not a Senator at any point (he was one continually from 1995 to 2018). However, a single statement also means we have to put on multiple "elected in" and "parliamentary term" qualifiers (four elections, eleven terms). This can get quite confusing for queries.
  • Multiple statements means that we don't have multiple qualifiers, but it also does look more cluttered, it can confuse some tools, and can potentially imply that there is a break in office.
  • The middle route of a smaller number of statements (one per election) which I suggested above isn't great either, as it has the downsides of both approaches (several items *and* multiple "parliamentary term" qualifiers).
So overall, whatever we go with, it's imperfect. One thing I would stress, though, is that we should not worry about "the standard" being one statement just because they were originally uploaded that way - if modelling the data better needs moving to a multi-statement approach, then we should go ahead and make those changes. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyway why the "United States senator" is shown for 14 times? -- 08:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Because he was 14 times senator (from 103rd United States Congress to 115th United States Congress). VIGNERON (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
He wasn't actually elected that many times and there was just one uninterrupted mandate. Supposedly, his junior/senior co-senator did change several times. So someone might think even more separate statements are needed.
However, the start and end dates for each legislative period is defined at (e.g.) Q18740945#P580 for 115th United States Congress (Q18740945) and easily queryiable. --- Jura 08:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
He was elected 6 times for 6 Senate terms corresponding to 14 (13?) Congress. The dates of the Congress doesn't always fit the dates of a senator in this Congress ; most obvious example, when someone dies it doesn't stay senator (not in the US at least) and there is many reason for interruption, so it's not always trivial to query (which is not the same for junior/senior senators where the algorithm is well-known, simple and unambiguous). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there should definetly be separate statements if there is an interruption. Here, the many statements suggest there may have been one, but actually, I don't think there was one. --- Jura 10:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Teester, Oravrattas: who for some reason have not been pinged by anyone above. I had asked the former user why this was done and I was referred to the model of the latter user. Mahir256 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I certainly didn't invent the modelling here: I mostly brought together the various pre-existing approaches, documented them, and tried to get the main groups working with this sort of data to agree to do it with a degree of consistency. The separate P39 for each legislative term (or if something significant within that changes, such as switching party), was already agreed in the French and German projects, and then also adopted by the WikiProject British Politicians, and more widely as part of the Wikidata:WikiProject every politician/Political data model. In many countries, the data for things like precise start and end dates is often quite difficult to find, and all that we know (without a lot of extra research from other sources) is that someone was a member of, for example, the 8th and 9th legislatures, which this model lets us handle very neatly. There is a question about whether that is best expressed as two separate statements, such as:
or combining them onto a single one:
My view is that it's cleaner having them as separate statements as they're conceptually distinct things, often have separate source URLs, and often grow to include other qualifiers that only relate to one of the terms, e.g. elected in (P2715), and combining everything together starts to get much messier, and, by my understanding of how qualifiers interact, would actually be incorrect:
How this translates to the US Senate, where a single election spans more than one Congress is certainly more awkward than in most other countries where legislative terms and elections are much more closely synced. But in general I agree with VIGNERON above that it's better to have separate statements, and aggregate them when needed, than to cram multiple things into one statement, and then potentially have to unpick them later. --Oravrattas (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we have a sample where this change was actually needed, i.e. John McCain (Q10390) and position held (P39) =
    "United States senator, United States representative, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator, United States senator "
John McCain has no link to Albania btw. I understand that you keep attempt to sell your services for content generation to WMF foundation, but we would actually need to see a sample use case mandating that change. Just that EveryPolitician (is that your trademark?) prefers another scheme isn't a reason WMF needs to spend money on content creation. Wikidata still needs these resources for the development of its infrastructure.--- Jura 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There should be consistency between how different countries' legislators are handled. The fact that John McCain isn't connected to Albania is irrelevant here. We can group things by legislature, or by election, or by overall unbroken term, or any of a number of other options, but there has to be a standard. The output of a raw property function is not the most relevant factor here. --Yair rand (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Point taken about uniformity, but there is a difference between legislatures with specific seats and single individuals in those seats, and those with party lists, and any of several hybrids in between. Some data models of the U.S. Senate even distinguish the two different seats from the same state as two different offices (in fact, if you are going to deal cleanly with succession, you pretty much have to do that). - Jmabel (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's important that the same positions is reflected the same way across people. The question is here is how many positions the John McCain held. Is it one? Is it fourteen? How is it called? When did it he enter office? When did it end? Can people hold an office when dead? It's pointless to attempt to repeat the dates already present on the item for the legislative period on every person participating. --- Jura 05:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: can you expand a little more on the issues around dealing cleanly with succession? What would we want to be tracking here that replaces (P1365) and replaced by (P1366) qualifiers wouldn't give? --Oravrattas (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Oravrattas: Technically, those properties do the job, but they still leave it very hard to answer a question like, "who occupied this same seat in 1920?" - Jmabel (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Hmm, I wasn't aware that they were actually separate seats. Does this mean that rather than saying that Jon Kyl (Q371031) replaced John McCain (Q10390) as Senator for Arizona, you would actually want to say that Jeff Flake (Q929581) really replaced John McCain (Q10390) (as senior senator), and Jon Kyl (Q371031) replaced Jeff Flake (Q929581) (as junior senator)? That seems quite different to how I've usually seen this portrayed. Do you think it would be enough to come up with example queries to say not only who the senators at a given point were, but which was junior and which was senior? It would certainly be interesting to see if we could correctly produce the list in the same order as at Seniority in the United States Senate (resolving the tiebreakers looks like being an interesting challenge!) --Oravrattas (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Oravrattas: The distinction isn't "senior" and "junior" (although that is something people do commonly talk about, it has no basis in law). See Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#First_direct_elections_to_the_Senate: note the distinction of "class 1", "class 2" and "class 3" Senators, on different electoral cycles. - Jmabel (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The class could potentially be inferred from elected in (P2715), but that would be a little unreliable as it wouldn't be present on appointed individuals and special elections would be awkward to take into account. Another option is to make the claims Class 1 US Senator, Class 2 US senator and Class 3 US senator, but this slightly breaks the model and would hence make things more difficult to query. An analogous situation occurred with member of the European Parliament (Q27169), where politicians were associated with both an European political group for the purposes of the European Parliament, but also the national political party to which they belonged. For this, we added parliamentary group (P4100) for the European political group and represents (P1268) for the national political party. In a similar manner, using a qualifier such as of (P642) with Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 might be an appropriate solution here. Teester (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
If these are actually separate seats, might make it sense to model them as targets of electoral district (P768)? At the moment the actual state (e.g. Wyoming (Q1214)) is used for this, though in many other countries distinct coextensive constituency items are created — e.g. South Australia (Q56649110). If we took the same approach with the US, then perhaps we could create different items for "Wyoming (US Senate Class 1 seat)" and "Wyoming (US Senate Class 2 seat)", etc rather than just a single "Wyoming (US Senate seat)"? --Oravrattas (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Oravrattas: Good thought. @Teester: Prior to 1913, U.S. Senators weren't elected at all, they were appointed. - Jmabel (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Teester: is this something that would be relatively easy to change with the statements you've added, or would we need to map out a plan of attack for how to migrate to this? I have a few thoughts on possible ways to do it, but best to check first how it might interact with your approach! --Oravrattas (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Separate position for a separate term may look odd, but it is most consistent with election law. In most of election laws the mandate of legislator starts with the start of term and ends with the end of term. Even if a legislator is "reelected", this is a new term and new mandate.--Jklamo (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The property is for a specific position: member of the US senate. Here John McCain (Q10390) held the same position. Do you have any reference that would support this view for US senators? --- Jura 11:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The property is not for a specific position — it's just the general position held (P39) used for all such legislative positions. However, presuming you just misspoke on that, this still merely sidesteps the question of what factors are sufficient to split a claim into two or more others. You seem to be suggesting that a single statement must be capable of expressing the entirety of knowledge about something in a single shot. If someone changes political affiliation mid-term, are you also suggesting multiple parliamentary group (P4100) qualifiers on the same P39, or would you see that as sufficient to require a new one? --Oravrattas (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion, but have not had the opportunity to comment until now. Firstly, the changes I've made are easily reversible. I haven't removed the original statements yet, so removing Q13217683 position held (P39) statements with a parliamentary term (P2937) qualifier should restore things to how they were before I started importing the data. I'm happy to do that if that's what the consensus decides.
However I feel that the data I've added provides a better, more consistent way of modelling position held (P39) for legislative terms, for all the reasons discussed above. I would note that I've also been adding similar statements for United States representative (Q13218630). They add significant missing data such as start time (P580) and end time (P582) which were not recorded before. Should they be treated the same way as Q13217683? Equally, what makes Q13217683 different from other legislative positions that they should require a separate, bespoke modelling method? A significant advantage of a common modelling method is that queries can easily be adapted for different legislative positions by substituting different entities rather than having to write a new query specific to the modelling method for that legislative position. The modelling is used for a number legislative positions at the moment, including member of the European Parliament (Q27169), Member of Parliament (Q16707842), Deputy to the Dáil (Q654291) and others.
The issue of multiple United States Senator for {{#property:P39|from=Q10390}} speaks to me more as a weakness in the template rather than in the modelling. In my opinion, that template should be able to concatenate identical results if required. Teester (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree on improving the #property call, if possible. Even if we were to model all P39s purely with start and end dates, there would still be lots of people who would have held the same position multiple times, and thus still exhibit this same issue. --Oravrattas (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The position held by John McCain was US senator from 1987 to his death. He hasn't held 14 different positions and it seems to have been uninterrupted. Have we seen a sample yet that actually mandates these unfortunate attempts to work-around for attempts to qualify qualifiers for US senators? If not, a cleanup is mandated. P39 is here to model positions held and not legislative terms. As mentioned, the item about each legislative term can hold its start and end date. This can easily be matched with a senators start and end date. It reduces redundancy, inconsistency and errors. It also consistent with the model for US presidents and many other positions.
    I understand that this may require adjustments for EveryPolitician who at some point had been paid by WMF to provide some data to Wikidata, but this isn't a reason to break the consistent, volunteer built and maintained structure already built at Wikidata. We should avoid building a reliance on a data vendor. --- Jura 07:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Q19217073 blank

Hi. I'm not sure about what to do in that kind of case, but Q19217073 is now blank and useless. Regards. --TwoWings (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: Q19217073 - Jmabel (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Judging by its history, it should have been merged to 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State (Q1518944) but was blanked instead. - Jmabel (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have thus done the merge, so the blank item is now a proper redirect. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Geografical and political objects of a place

Hello. d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/09#Ιnception of a municipality. I want to have two separate items: one for a geografical object (a suburn for example) and one for the municipality (political object) that control that suburn. Now I have one item for both. I am wondering which properties applies to each item. For example, I want to remove the correct properties from Agia Napa (Q393593) (that is the geographical object) to Q59358025. (Both have mistakes. I have just tried to create an example).

My opinion:

GO=Geografical Object MN=Municipality

And it there a property to connect the GO with MN and opposite? Are there any properties that may apply to each item? Xaris333 (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Municipality is an ambiguous term: it may refer to either a geographical area administered by a local government, or the local government itself, or the conflation of the two. So if we want to split fully we have 3 items like Amsterdam municipal council (Q18711724), Amsterdam (Q9899), and Amsterdam (Q727). Ghouston (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Although in this case, the splitting has been done differently than I'd expect, since Amsterdam municipal council (Q18711724) is only an item for a council, not a local government, and Amsterdam (Q9899) is an item that conflates a local government and the area it administers. Then we also have college van burgemeester en wethouders of Amsterdam (Q20194226). For other cities, we do have an item for the government itself, e.g., Bristol City Council (Q16953796) (I think). Confusing, isn't it. Ghouston (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jacksonj04: who has been doing a lot of work in this area (e.g. with Leeds (Q774015)Leeds City Council (Q6515870)council of Leeds City Council (Q55465119) + Executive Board of Leeds City Council (Q56707470)) --Oravrattas (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a good example if you want to untangle it to avoid conflations. Local governments are organisations, areas administered are geographical regions, councils are management committees (or local governments themselves, the word is ambiguous); the different items will be used in different types of claims. Ghouston (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

In Cyprus, a municipality has a Municipal Council. The Municipal council has part the mayor and the municipal councilors. The Municipal council is an executive branch (not legislature).

Is this structure correct? Xaris333 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The structure as you describe it looks OK, but on the items we've got Agia Napa (Q393593) being an instance of municipalities of Cyprus Republic (Q16739079) and Q59358025 is an instance of municipalities of Cyprus Republic (Q16739079) and human settlement (Q486972). It seems confused. Ghouston (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think municipality (Q15284) and hence municipalities of Cyprus Republic (Q16739079) are already conflations of geographic areas and administrative bodies. Ghouston (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: As I have already said both have mistakes. I have just tried to create an example. So Q59358025 is an instance of municipalities of Cyprus Republic (Q16739079). Agia Napa (Q393593) is an instance of human settlement (Q486972) or maybe something else? And how can I connect these two items? Which property should I use? Xaris333 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Since municipality (Q15284) and municipalities of Cyprus Republic (Q16739079) are conflations of territories and governing bodies, the split items can't really be instances of these. Perhaps the territory would be an instance of second-level administrative country subdivision (Q13220204) and the governing body an instance of local government (Q6501447). Then you'd probably get a few constraint violations for statements which are on the wrong item, which would be a good thing. Ghouston (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Special:UnconnectedPages not updating

Hi, all. After some pause, I'm back working at Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia and trying to make sure all pages are connected to Wikidata and (if possible) have language links. I'm finding that not all pages with links have had those links flow through to lad:Special:UnconnectedPages. A notable example is Jair Bolsonaro (Q10304982), president-elect of Brazil. I removed the link last week and then reset it, and it still does not appear on the special page—even though the iw links appear correctly in both directions. At least two other pages on my wiki are having this problem. Any thoughts? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A null edit on the Wikipedia page in question helps in such cases. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if I did a null edit on one this morning or not. But somehow, just a little after you posted, everything updated. Go figure. Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I did three null edits which removed the articles from that special page ;-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Spam filter madness

The spam filter is preventing me from adding a URL to a search on, to a WikiProject page - Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians/ambassadors. Details here. Can anything be done ... it would be handy if the project page could display the link, which is concerned with info sources for QA. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: m:Spam_blacklist/Log is an interesting place. @Billinghurst: regarding this September decision. Mahir256 (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
THanks Mahir256. In fairness, right now, quite a lot of us would like to block the UK government. @Billinghurst: - what was the background? There's a clear use case for us having a link to - it's the only URL route to a useful set of information; it's a key interface for accessing UK government information. What exactly occurred that led you to block it? I see you've also blocked Also seems odd. I'm not seeing any process here ... you seem to propose and then execute the blocks. Where's the casus belli log for these actions? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: FWIW we don't do these things randomly, and with the best intentions, though sometimes there are unenvisaged consequences. Always happy to discuss, and make modifications.

Domain search links are a spambot favourite sitting beside hard spam links (have a look at special:log/spamblacklist somewhere where you have sufficient rights) and also Special:Abuselog. I think that they try to leverage "good" links like greylisting or credibility, though also where they have a known search result leading to their items. I do run through various Special:LinkSearch links and have run reports (where possible) from COIBot to watch for consequences prior to actioning, though predominantly focusing on WPs rather than WD. [We don't have a good means to look at all wikis for abuse, or linksearches]. There are also direct spammers who use the search links like url shorteners, which we all know are widely abused. Comfortable with removing it if we don't have a means to improve it, noting though that generally the WPs discourage such search links as they are dynamic and variable in their output and rubbish for references. The community can add an exclusion to Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist if you are looking to allow something locally.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@billinghurst: Thanks. I guess I can kinda see how spammers can game some sites via search, for instance if they can add comments to forums that are indexed. I'm struggling to understand how they can game the search, which I'd have thought is pretty thoroughly tied down. I'm afraid I'm not able to cause the special:log/spamblacklist UI to list instances of abuse; and in terms of transparecy, that would only show refused edits after the domain was blocked, not whatever went on to cause the block in the first place. This is very much not my area, so please forgive what may be staggeringly niaive questions. Presuming I'm missing something obvious, can you give me worked example of a way in which might be abused? I do appreciate that proactive dealing with spammers is important, and I very much AGF w.r.t. your work in the bilges. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Sometimes it is that the search links are bad/evil, and sometimes they are workable, though indicators of foul play, or solely an attempt to legitimise the spam attempt. If the search links are not necessary crosswiki, then where they are being excessively abused it should be a reasonable defence to exclude them. If one wiki needs those links, or subsets of those links, then the accepted methodology to utilise links is the local whitelist by the expected means of the community (usually either mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist or local admin noticeboards). If communities find an addition problematic, then we remove it.

To my process, when I do blacklisting in a case like this, I will usually monitor spam links for a period of time, and then subsequently check the blacklist logs at a several primary sites including enWP, Commons, if language specific, occasionally WD, but no so much. For the search regex, I have just reviewed logs for one month for enWP and C, and 3 months for WD, and your attempt is the only legitimate attempt to use that search link against the 100+ spambot attempts. Where I see that an addition is problematic then it either does not happen, or subsequently that it is causing issues, then I reverse it. I am open to suggestions on how to better advertise these blocked search links. There is not a better means to have explanatory text fro the system, nor a more convenient, nuanced means to defer a link addition in the mediawiki system. Noting that these defences are generally not sexy enough to get developer resources, and the generally ability to stop spambots getting inside the system is totally crap and not one that MW developers evidently dedicate time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@billinghurst: Thanks again, Billinghurst. I'm not going to push you to whitelist Still a bit confused about what the spammers are up to - at least in respect of, having got my act together and looked through a few pages of the log. As you say, perhaps trying to legitimise their account, or an edit, or a series of edits. All most odd.
Thank you for the work you do. It all looks and sounds an unenviable but necessary task. I could make suggestions like: the error message when a spamtrap is triggered might be altered to tell the user where to go to look for more info ... but perhaps it's as well to keep the regex & proces obscure, all things considered. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Like any aspect of Wikimedia projects which are effectively in the hands of one editor, or a small number of editors, it cannot work properly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems like an unhelpful and inaccurate comment. Please enlighten us of the benefit of that contribution.

With regard to the spam management, this probably also works better than no one doing anything, but let us not worry about effectiveness of that aspect. Apart from the component that numbers of people work in the area of managing spam defences against a system that is abused by spambots, there are indeed a small number of people who concentrate some efforts. Now nothing is done out of vision of the community, logs are available of both the spam lists, spam hits and global abuse filters, and messages are provided where edit blocks occur in all scenarios, and this should enable the communities to identify problems and provide suitable feedback. Noting anyone is welcome to come along and help, though it is not attractive mop work, and it does not get any plaudits. Always willing to hear of improved ways to do things, and where problems are caused and solutions are needed, and I look forward to that shared positive approach into the future.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2018/ is one example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
A domain blocked by Beetstra in 2011, after spamming at enWP and others, following a blacklisting requested by the community, and you are pointing to a whitelist request at enWP. What is your point? You are not adding clarity to your criticism, nor providing suggestions on the improvements that could be made.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Credited to Vs. real author

Seeking the proverbial wisdom of the crowd here: Do we have a standard way of representing the real creator of a work alongside the "official" creator of a work? If not, any good tips on how to hack it? Is a new property in order, perhaps? I'm looking for something general, but mostly work on music myself. So a classic example would be the "Lennon/McCartney" credits. Moebeus (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Moebeus: one example I’m aware of: Trump: The Art of the Deal (Q7847758). However, it’s the only work on Wikidata with two author statements disputing each other (source), so it’s not really representative of a “usual” way to model this. --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@TweetsFactsAndQueries: Heh, while funny that's not exactly what I'm looking for. Disputed statements are a thing apart, what I'm looking for is something more formal, in relation to your exay mple maybe "author=Donald Trump, ghostwriter=Tony Schwartz". Or in the case of the Beatles: How to indicate that "Yesterday" was written by Paul McCartney but credited to Lennon-McCartney. Moebeus (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Real vs real (in the entertainment industry) is one of the reasons I gave up on Wikipedia. I find it hard to be an encyclopedia when you're only allowed to use approved sources, all of which happen to be paid advertisements regurgitating the same cover stories. Lazypub (talk)

This also applies to much older performance works, which are traditionally attributed to an author, but which some (or most) modern scholarship rejects. For example the Sanskrit play Mṛcchakaṭikā (Q3429324) is traditionally ascribed to Śūdraka (Q1331151), a king for whom there is no evidence that he ever existed, and is now assumed to be a pen name of some kind. Or Rhesus (Q667750), a Greek tragedy traditionally credited to Euripides (Q48305), but which is disputed by modern scholarship on the basis of style. In these situations, how do we indicate traditionally-assigned authorship? How do we indicate scholarly doubt or disputation concerning authorship? And what do we offer as an alternative when there is no other individual identified as the author?

We have the same problem with some published literature, such as The Vampyre (Q509070). All of the earliest copies of the novella state on the cover page that Lord Bryon was the author (even now French Wikisource identifies him as the author). But the actual author was John William Polidori (Q364264), as evidenced by published letters from both Byron and Polidori asserting the latter's authorship. So how do we indicate for a published edition that the edition claims one individual as author, but the actual author was a different individual? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey Imagine if the vinyl junkies and the bookworms got together and proposed a couple of new properties, we'd be unstoppable! Jokes aside, hit me up if you want to collaborate on coming up with something that would work for both books and music - we already share a lot of properties so it could make sense. (I guess Project Music is really encroaching on book properties more than sharing, but that's the way the cookie crumbled) Moebeus (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If I had even the start of a workable idea, I'd be proposing it. I'm hoping that someone else has a means to tackle the problem because this is one where I know the problem, but am stumped as to solving it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
How about a property “credited author” AKA “credited to” = “name appearing as the creator of a published work, version or edition, when different from the actual creator”? - PKM (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a qualifier approach (object has role (P3831) or nature of statement (P5102)) might be more appropriate, given that for some other properties (e.g. publication date (P577)) the original work's data is kept even if it's factually incorrect. Jc86035 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I kinda like the idea of using nature of statement (P5102) but then that requires a relatively strict set of approved and well thought-out values or it will quickly get super-confusing. Moebeus (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I continue to fail to really grasp the intended dividing line between sourcing circumstances (P1480) and nature of statement (P5102) (possibly not helped by a really rather unhelpful label on P1480 ?), but P1480 might also be appropriate ("sourcing circumstances" = "record company fiction") ? Jheald (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia redirects reflected in wikidata

Hello we are integrating data from wikidata partly based on Wikipedia ids. In many cases the Wikipedia url has changed meanwhile. The old url redirects to the new one, which itself point to the relevant wikidata item. My question will it be acceptable to also add the old wp urls to wikidata, in order to be able to integrate through them in the future?

Here are some examples:–1968)

Thank you. --Nikola Tulechki (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikola Tulechki: I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but it is technically impossible to add more than one "sitelink" for a Wikipedia edition or other project from a Wikidata item (i.e. one item can only have zero or one links to the English Wikipedia). Is it problematic to extract the Wikidata ID from the current page's title? Are you using a list of Wikipedia articles which is out of date? (If you were to regenerate such a list you could use the Wikidata Query Service to look at Wikidata's data.) Jc86035 (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Yes, I have some outdated WP links in my source data. I am using federated SPARQL queries to get WD items from them by querying for ?WPurl schema:about ?WDitem . For outaded links like the ones in the example I get no hits. What I want to do is add new schema:about triples using quickstatements. However, as I am writing this I realize that that may not even be technically possible. --Nikola Tulechki (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikola Tulechki: You could try using w:en:Module:Redirect (i.e. {{subst:#invoke:redirect|main|page-title-1}} % {{subst:#invoke:redirect|main|page-title-2}} ...) in an English Wikipedia edit window and previewing the page to get the current article titles, although you would be limited to 500 articles for each preview. Jc86035 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Identify problems with adding new languages into Wikidata

The development team is aware that several problems occur around the process of adding and using new languages in Wikidata.

With this feedback loop, we would like to list and describe the problems, so we can address them and together with the community, find stable solutions for these different problems.

Please add your input directly on the talk page :) The feedback loop is open until December 18th. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #341

Facto Post and ScienceSource latest

The latest issue of Facto Post is available on Wikipedia, concentrating on WikiCite and librarians. It links also to the ScienceSource wiki, where text mining has been active, to create annotations. A ScienceSource queries page here displays some SPARQL that runs over there: the Ps and Qs are not Wikidata's, but in that Wikibase (the overloading of the letters is currently inevitable. So you do better to consult where there are links that run, even if the page is in comparison black-and-white rather than Technicolor.

This link, there called "Co-occurrence version 3", is the simplest way to understand the ScienceSource project. It illustrates where in a short paper a drug and a disease term occur close together (less than 200 characters apart). We are looking for statements for medical condition treated (P2175), and such places are the best ones to check out.

Leave me a message if you'd like to know more.

Charles Matthews (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

how to go about getting wikidata or wikipedia to coordinate the efforts of all of humanity to combat climate change and the general degradation of the planet.

With the planet in dire straits, and the threat of being past or approaching the "tipping point", it is necessary for humanity to act and try to save the situation. So the first step, in my opinion, to be effective, is to coordinate all the efforts of all of humanity throughout the planet. This could seem like a daunting challenge, yet it us obviously necessary even though it has never been attempted before. Wikipedia or wikidata, I am not sure which, would be the best website on the internet to do it, due to its vast readership and humanistic bent, and it would be best if there is only one website doing it.

It would take a large team of dedicated volunteers to categorize in many different areas all that is going on, who is doing what, where, how, what do they need, etc. to minimize redundancy and to be sure that nothing is being left out.

There are already website with lists of things that need to be done such as Drawdown ( And there are many other possible solutions. And groups doing big projects like who have organized women around the world to plant one billion trees per year.

Not only would it be an organizing site, but it would be an opportunity to help unify humanity to a large degree if it becomes popular and with this unity it may be possible to convince governments to do things, like bring back the military to work on remedial projects.

I have a few other ideas that would be useful, but first I need help or ideas how to get wikipedia or wikidata (whichever is most appropriate) to take on the project. Please respond so we can get moving on this, if you agree with the logic of the idea.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mofwoofoo (talk • contribs) at 22:57, November 29, 2018‎ (UTC).

Yes I agree. One idea I had was to conduct a major survey of all remaining single-line rail systems in the US that are near or in large urban areas and run a cost-benefit analysis to change them into double-line rail systems suitable for commuter services. This would drastically reduce the carbon footprint of traffic jams. I have lots of otherr ideas too, but no idea how to model them in Wikidata. Good luck with your project! Jane023 (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia's mission is to be neutral. As such it's not the best platform to organize activism. To the extend that you think that adding certain information to Wikidata is valuble for your enviromental activism you might do that, this is likely not a good place unify people around activism for a particular course. ChristianKl❫ 11:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I also like to think that we can make contributions that could save the planet. However I admit I don't quite know how to do this. Maybe a Wikidata wikiproject "Environmental activism" or "Climate Change" or "Save the Planet"? Jane023 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure you can organize something towards environmental activism if you want to. You could probably organize a pie-eating contest as well, and maybe a for-profit corporation and a book group and a band. However, you certainly would not be permitted to do any of these things on Wikidata itself, as that is not what Wikidata is for. I don't even understand why you would want to do any such thing on Wikidata, it's not like Wikidata discussion pages have some associated +5 effectiveness bonus to whatever you want to do. --Yair rand (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I tend to organize a lot of stuff on Wikidata, some political, some art-related, and no one has objected before. I am surprised you feel politics shouldn't have a home on Wikidata. I am really impressed with the work done on politicians, for example. I see no problem in serving up items with few statements to people who may be interested in adding to them. There are lots of politicians interested in climate change per country. Jane023 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
IMO, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Like the news, it shouldn't get involved. It should only report what happened. It shouldn't choose a side. It shouldn't try to sway future events. It should simply be a record of historical/important events. Lazypub (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Even encyclopedias are political. In fact, it's hard to find some aspect of human life that is not political. Jane023 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Funny bots

The French singer Richard Anthony (Q774501) has apparently authored tens or hundreds of scientific publications. Any scientist named "R Anthony" is now redirecting towards the singer. I don't know why, and what to do, but I'm just letting you know. :) Totodu74 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

ping Daniel Mietchen, looks like a sourcemd/quickstatements batch went wrong --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually it looks like the source of the problem was a merge back in October from item Q56191657 for "R Anthony". ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
There were wrong identifiers assigned to the item even earlier, and I wouldn’t be surprised it the merge was done based on the (wrong) identifiers. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, identifier salad that led the bots astray. I think I've cleaned it up for the moment. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I came across another scientific musician today, same type of case it looks like: Joseph Hughes (Q47698199). I just removed the occupation=researcher and thought nothing of it until I read this and it rung a bell: Went back and this 80s pop star has a bunch of scholarly articles linked to him. Should I correct or will there be a more automated effort to roll these back? Moebeus (talk)

Similar items

Is Q1427384 (de:Flatted fifth) the same as diminished fifth (Q12378925) or tritone (Q623939)? I think the former item is describing the same thing as one of the others, but it's not really clear. All three items have dewiki sitelinks. Jc86035 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • As a (non-classical) musician, I'd understand them interchangeably, though I don't think I personally would be likely to say "diminished fifth". Usually I'd call it a "flatted fifth" if the lower note was the tonic of the scale I'm in, and otherwise a "tritone". - Jmabel (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: I've redirected the dewiki article to de:Tritonus and merged the Wikidata item, based on the content of the relevant articles in the English and German Wikipedias. Jc86035 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

How to link a Youtube user?

I only have found YouTube channel ID (P2397), is there any property for user accounts on youtube?--Micru (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Micru: The YouTube channel ID appears to be a unique identifier for a YouTube user; you can find this identifier by going to a YouTube user page and searching for, among around 130 different places in the source of a given YouTube user's page (when I tried one of the examples on P2397), a meta element with "twitter:url" as its property attribute. (Also note the instruction on the property to add a website username (P554) qualifier to uses of P2397.) Mahir256 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The channel ID is the user account. Lazypub (talk)

Where can I find information about the Data: namespace on Commons?

Hi all

I've been trying to find information about the Data: namespace on Commons (which Wikidata uses a lot) and what kind of files are allowed and under which licenses (e.g tabular data and maps) but I can't find any information, even on Commons:File types, does someone know where I can find this? I tried asking on Commons Village pump but no reply :(


--John Cummings (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings: c:Commons:Data links to c:Help:Tabular Data and c:Help:Map Data. Jc86035 (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Jc86035:, perfect. Just to double check, I had previously been told in a workshop that files in the Data: namespace on Commons had to be available under CC0, but reading this documentation it appears that also CC BY and CC BY-SA are also accepted? Is this correct?
--John Cummings (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: I'm not sure how this works ("technically possible" doesn't mean a project will allow it), but presumably you would have to link to the data page in some way to comply with BY-SA. Jc86035 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: From the discussion at m:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Multimedia_and_Commons/Allow_non-CC0_licensed_data_for_datasets, it looks as though there may still be some issues to be addressed before the interfaces will be adjusted to allow data to be uploaded that is not CC0. Jheald (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Jheald:, so is it that the instructions on those pages are wrong? Or is it that Commons is allowing them to be uploaded but there's a bug meaning they can't be used yet? I'm asking because I'm helping to write some instructions for Geoshapes use on Wikidata at User:John Cummings/Geoshapes and I'm getting conflicting information. --John Cummings (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: I haven't tried to upload any datasets yet, but I believe that the uploader only allows you to specify them to be CC0, and that license is hard-coded into the description page (which doesn't use the usual Commons templates or wikitext). But somebody may be able to confirm or correct this understanding? Jheald (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
An OSM geoshape of Hungary

@John Cummings: The ability to add non-CC0 data was added and then rolled back a few days later. I've just tried to modify a page I created that uses CC-BY-2.5 and it wouldn't save. But as mentioned at the bug report, you could use CC0-1.0 and note the correct licence in the "sources" or "description" fields, as done here.

BTW, I would advise using "Commons map data" (or similar) instead of "geoshape", as "geoshape" is one of the types of data available directly from OpenStreetMap via Wikidata IDs. (And, yes, the Wikidata property is badly named.) Gareth (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gareth: Saying CC-BY-SA 4.0 on a page with "Data available under Creative Commons Zero" seems to be very hostile for data reusers who might not read all text but count on the meta data being correct. ChristianKl❫ 13:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: This was a suggestion from a WMF developer. And as I mentioned above, saving with the correct licence no longer works, so it's a choice between either leaving pages broken and unusable (which is what I've done because I wasn't able to finish what I started before the changes were rolled back) or providing an incorrect licence and clarifying the situation as best as possible. Gareth (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Award - what property to use for 'for

e.g. Kath Weston awarded the Ruth Benedict Prize in 1997, for Render Me, Gender Me: Lesbians Talk Sex, Class, Color, Nation, Studmuffins . What property do I use as a pq: in Q59430803#P166? thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

for work (P1686), AFAIK. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
(Anyone know if there's plans to have the property suggester work from qualifier property constraints? That would have made this easier, I think.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

WikidataCon, the conference for open data enthusiasts, will take place in Berlin in October 2019

WikidataCon 2017.svg

Hello dear Wikidata community,

After the success of the first WikidataCon in 2017 and many conversations regarding the future of this conference, we are now ready to announce that the WikidataCon 2019 will take place on October 25th-26th 2019 in Berlin.

Apart from this first piece of information (save the date in your calendars!), there are some important changes regarding the goal of the conference that we would like to share with you.

After its first iteration, the goals of the conference will evolve. The event will be more focused on networking and strategic discussions. The target group will of course include the Wikidata community in its broad sense, especially people and organizations who are already involved in editing, structuring and reusing the data, but will also reach further the organizations who may be interested in using Wikidata and Wikibase, or contributing in various ways to the evolution of Wikidata.

The program will be adapted to this new goal, and organized around different levels of involvement for the participants: from being inspired (with keynotes, success stories, vision of Wikidata’s future) to diving deeper into the hot topics, but also action: the participants will have the opportunity to work on projects during the conference.

Besides many possible topics that will be submitted by the participants, we plan to have a dedicated track about lexicographical data, discussing the perspectives for further reusing data about words within and beyond Wikidata.

A lot of space will be left for discussions, networking, building connections between the different stakeholders and members of the broad Wikidata community.

The conference will be hosting at least 250 participants. In order to make sure that the access to the conference is fair and to not reproduce the issues of last year (rush to get a ticket and long waiting list), we will set up a more streamlined registration process, where a committee made up of both staff and volunteers will make sure that the applicants will contribute in one way or another to the goal of the conference. I will keep you updated for the next steps of this process.

You can already see Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 which will be improved step by step over the next months, and you can already use the discussion page. If you have any question, you can also contact me on my talk page or by email:

We're looking forward to a great WikidataCon 2019, together with you!

Thanks for your attention, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Admin pages Q3907246 and Q4580256

User:Infovarius reverted me. IMHO, that wasn't an improvement.

I suggest we lump "page used to make different requests to administrators" (which Q3907246 was reverted to) together with "page used for communication which requires administrators attention" (Q4580256 (this tends to be the same thing) and move link portals to Q9004001. Perhaps create a new item for admin-specific link portals. On w:Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, w:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos and w:nl:Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren, you can't make any request. (please ping me if you reply) Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Storing all sports results in Wikidata?

Hey, does anyone know if there has ever been any discussion about expanding Wikidata's sport data to include scores and other data from all matches of professional sports teams? On Wikipedia, it's pretty common to have this data in the articles for each team's season (e.g. en:2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season). This data ends up being duplicated a lot – every result needs to be recorded in both teams' season articles and the league's season article, in every language's Wikipedia. If this data were on Wikidata, it would be less work for editors to update when matches conclude, and it would automatically sync to every page in every language. It would also be incredibly valuable to anyone wishing to reuse Wikidata data for other projects. But, this would mean every sports match would have its own item, and we'd definitely need major buy-in from one of the larger Wikipedias for the data to be kept up to date. I'm curious what others think of implementing something like this. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The field of sports results is not well developed indeed. Some thoughts:
  • A major concern is about licencing of typically commercial sports results databases. Unlike in the cultural sector where lots of institutions move to open licences, most sports results databases are incompatibly licenced (with proprietary licences), as companies earn quite some money with their data. I am not sure based on which legal basis Wikipedias copy that much data from various proprietary databases, but doing so in Wikidata where we add an explicit CC0 licence tag to the sports results would clearly create some serious headache. At least for me.
  • If we ignore the legal concerns, some further thoughts: you can aim for in depth sports results that cover each and every aspect of a match/game/competition/tournament; this requires a lot of items likely on a per-match/race/fight/etc. basis, which need to be properly connected to each other and properly identified against external resources with identifiers; that is technically possible already now, but the amount of items would clearly make this a demanding task that requires a lot of automation. Alternatively, a simple approach would be to add consolidated results (winner, second, third, …, last place; with some relevant extra data like final scores, race time, etc) to existing items, but ignore all in-depth details that happened before the final round of matches; this way, one wouldn’t need to create lots of extra items and could immediately use such data in infoboxes etc, but one could not replace excessive data in pages such as en:2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season.
  • Another problem of in-depth results is that one also needs a lot of extra items about players, clubs, competitions, etc. that are not yet available. In Wikipedia, you can just add a red link if something is missing, but we cannot do so here. Formally, we are probably able to create many of these missing items as well (as long as they can be matched against an external resource), but this is a significant task by its own which should not be ignored.
  • When presenting sports results, all kinds of obscure special situations have to be considered and properly modeled. This is much easier to get done with unstructured, explanatory wikitext in Wikipedia than with structured data here at Wikidata.
  • There is also a desire to make “sports results in Wikidata” available according to a somewhat generic model that fits “all” types of sports, while still being able to consider sports-specific details. That would allow to gain lots of really interesting insight that is not even remotely available anywhere else. The excessive data collections in Wikipedia have not been designed with that aim; in Wikidata, the general model would be much more complicated to elaborate.
I would really like to see some progress regarding sports results in Wikidata. So, editors, please add more input here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Thanks for your thorough response. To respond to some of your concerns...
  • Licensing: You can't own the facts. If we went really in-depth (like detailed stats on each player), licensing might be an issue, but I don't think we need to go that far. Just the basics (e.g. teams, league, final score, date, time, referees, venue, line-ups, who/when for goals/discipline/substitutions, etc) would be enough. Our schema is entirely original, so there'd be no realistic basis for a copyright dispute.
  • Missing items: This will definitely happen sometimes, but I don't think it'd be entirely that often. On English Wikipedia, the notability standard for sports is a very low bar: for most major sports, if an athlete has appeared in even one fully professional match, they are considered notable. Thus, we have Wikipedia articles (and thus, Wikidata items) for even obscure players.
  • Lack of structure: This is true to an extent, and making a full data model won't be easy, but I think it's definitely doable. A lot of Wikipedia articles already use highly-structured templates such as en:Template:Football box collapsible (example: en:2017 Atlanta United FC season#Results). There will surely be some edge cases, but I think 99.9% of matches will be represented without major issues.
  • Need for automation: Automation will definitely be needed to initially add the data, but if we can get buy-in from a big Wikipedia, I think we might have a reduced need for ongoing automation. If, say, English Wikipedia started replacing manually-edited templates with Wikidata templates, then the hordes of people who typically update the articles would hopefully learn how to make the update on Wikidata instead (liberal use of "edit on Wikidata" links and explanatory source code comments will likely be necessary). For the initial import, we can hopefully automate importing a lot of data from articles that already use templates (as I mentioned in the "Lack of structure" bullet point). There are also some public domain sports data sources such as sport.db and football.db.
IagoQnsi (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@IagoQnsi: "You can't own the facts": you are right ... if you extract the data from the newspapers, TV sport program or other different sources. But if you extract all data from the same source, then you are wrong. One fact id not copyrighted, but a set of structured facts in one data model is.
Then import from WP is not welcome as this is copyrighted under CC BY SA and WD is licenced under CC0. And I don't speak about the rejection by WP of massive and uncontrolled data from all WPs in WD. Snipre (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Snipre: In the U.S. (where Wikimedia's servers are located), a database is only copyrightable if there is something original/creative about the way the data was gathered/organized. Facts such as the date, the location, who won, who scored at what time, etc require no creativity to compile, and thus are not protected by copyright. These facts are comparable to phone book information, which the Supreme Court has ruled are not copyrightable, or to data in Wikipedia infoboxes, which we import to Wikidata all the time. It's possible that the visual layout of templates such as en:Template:Football box collapsible could be copyrightable, but we wouldn't be replicating the visual presentation on Wikidata -- we'd just be grabbing the raw data. In the European Union, there is the Database Directive which provides database rights as you described, but as long as we avoid importing data from European sources, we should be fine. More info: meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights, en:Sui generis database right. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Additional note: For importing data from the Wikipedia templates, we would definitely have to omit the 'notes' field, and we can't import the match report URLs unless we're very careful about it (sometimes people will add multiple URLs and/or link to the team's report instead of the league's, which could be argued as a creative decision). But for everything else, I don't think there's any realistic argument that any originality went into compiling that data. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@IagoQnsi: I am aware of meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights so I can only rcommend you to read it carefully, especially that comment about copyright protection in the US: "The level of creativity required is low, so it doesn’t have to be very creative — as long as the author had some discretion and made some choices in what to include or how to organize it, the database is likely to be protected." So if a website is copyrighting its database, better be careful before judging that Supreme Court reference can overule that copyright.
And your choice of using WP instead of original databases to import data into WD is clearly a way to bypass the copyright question, if it is really so clear that no copyright can be applied why don't extract data directly from the original databases ? Why use a dataset which is probably corrupted due to manual entry ? And finally you don't provide any argument to oppose the fact that WPs don't want to use WD data because WD is unreliable due to use of data from sources considered as no reliable reference. WP itself considers that WP data can't be used to source other WP statements but only external sources can be used as reference. You just reinforce their criticism about WD, so thank you to work so hard to transform WD as completely useless for WP. Snipre (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Snipre: I definitely agree that trying to import from premium sports databases that claim copyright is risky and not ideal. This is why I favor importing data from Wikipedia, since there's little risk that anyone would challenge our public domain rationale. I also like using that data because it's what Wikipedia is already using. It will be easier to convince the Wikipedia community to keep using the same data they already have (just migrated to a new place), rather than switching to a completely new data source that they don't know anything about. It doesn't really matter that it's unreliable when they're already using it anyway.
Additionally, my expectation is that we'd only really be importing data to start this project—moving forward, the data would be maintained by Wikipedia users. The existing data on Wikipedia doesn't come from a database – after every match, someone manually updates each article based on match reports. If we started replacing the old manually-edited templates on Wikipedia with new Wikidata-powered templates, then those people who used to update the templates would hopefully learn to update Wikidata instead. We've already got an army of volunteers doing the work of maintaining this data—we just need to redirect them to Wikidata. Of course, this will require major buy-in from the Wikipedia community, but I'm optimistic that we could get consensus—after all, this would be reducing their workload in the long-term. –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
If you import data from Wikipedia then the resulting data on Wikidata won't be accepted in any of the major Wikipedias. If your goal is to have data that gets used by multiple Wikipedias it's no available strategy. ChristianKl❫ 09:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I've started working on a document outlining precisely what properties a sporting event can/should/must have: User:IagoQnsi/sports. Any feedback would be appreciated. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me like a collaboration with sport.db and football.db would be ideal as those projects already value putting data into the public domain. Given that they have a forum, how about asking there what they think about collaboration? ChristianKl❫ 10:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I'm okay with the idea of using an external data source like football.db. However, if we're choosing to work with them over importing from Wikipedia because we don't think people will trust Wikipedia data, I don't think they're any better – just like Wikipedia's data, theirs is manually maintained by editors. Wikipedia data is probably more trustworthy because it usually includes a link to the official match report as a reference (which we could import to Wikidata). There are other issues with football.db's data as well. It's very incomplete and barebones – except for their World Cup, they only have the team names and the final score, even for the biggest leagues (e.g. English Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga). For less-popular leagues like Major League Soccer, the data can be years out of date. Wikipedia data is much more detailed and is very up-to-date.
I know accuracy/reliability is a major problem with imported Wikipedia data, but I think it's a solvable problem. After importing the data, we can manually check it against official match reports, and then link those match reports in the reference field. This would be probably have to be done rather slowly, one league at a time, but I think it's the only way we can get data that is detailed, accurate, and not-legally-risky. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of Q19803442 and the like

How should Q19803442, Q19803497 and the like be used? Are they supposed to be for names where the person is known just by the initial (I'm looking at Q4647657) and if we find the full name, should that be there too? Or should it only be the letter name? Was this correct or should both have been kept? I can see why it would be helpful to keep track of B.B. King under Ben and Riley for given names but then should he also be under "B." as if that's an actual name? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For convenience in reading: A. (Q19803442), B. (Q19803497), A. Craig Copetas (Q4647657). - Jmabel (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • given name (P735) can hold multiple values. Depending on the use, one or the other can be the one people are most interested in. --- Jura 05:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I model an item for a series of reports

Hi all

I'm trying to model an item for a series of reports produced by UNESCO Reshaping Cultural Policies (Q59456378), there is a Wikipedia article for the reports but I don't know how to model it in Wikidata since it refers to more than one publication. What should Instance of be?


--John Cummings (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Presumably, each report should get its own Wikidata item. Then there are several different ways you can effectively relate them to the item for the article. If the article corresponds to some recognized grouping, has part (P527) probably is best, along with part of (P361). Also, if the reports have a clear sequence you might consider relating them to one another with follows (P155) / followed by (P156); if each is an update of the one before there is replaces (P1365) / replaced by (P1366). - Jmabel (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Should be ideally identical to how TV series for example are modelled. @Jura1: I think worked on this, where can documentation or informations be found on current practices on concensus on modelling series ? author  TomT0m / talk page 11:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @John Cummings: You should provide a better description of the case: is it a serie of reports or one report composed of several documents ?
In the first case, each report has to have an item and an additional item is required for the serie. The report items have to follow the model described by Help:Sources#Reports, policy, legislation and technical documentation. In the second case, we need to provide a clear model to handle that case. Snipre (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: I think it would be useful to make a new item "report series" modeled on existing book series (Q277759). In fact, I am rather surprised we don't have this already. There are a number of items that are defined as a "series of law reports" but are <instance of> "law report", and that seems wrong to me; those should "report series" (or even a subclass "law report series") with parts of the class "law report". - PKM (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

tool for importing information from Commons templates to Wikidata?

Hi, is there a tool that takes information from a Commons image's template and uploads it to Wikidata? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For some Commons templates QuickStatements is used, see commons:Category:Pages with QuickStatements links.--Jklamo (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist notices: let users dismiss these notifications

A while ago Tagishsimon noted that there is no simple way for users to hide the notices that are displayed above the watchlist (see the discussion). This is a real issue on small screens, as the list takes a lot of space above the watchlist itself (see this screenshot in 1280x800). I therefore propose that we switch to the solution adopted by the English Wikipedia, where watchlist notices consist of short sentences which can be dismissed with the help of a Javascript gadget (see en:Wikipedia:Watchlist_notices). Please add your support here if you think this would be a good move so that we can get the gadget enabled on Wikidata. @Multichill, Nikki, Galaktos: pinging editors involved in the previous discussion. − Pintoch (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, support. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, be bold :-) I think some wiki's have the option to only show it to certain user groups (like only admins). Might be useful for us too. Multichill (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The gadget is suitible for seperate lines of notices. We use static sections with dynamic content, not sure how that will work. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sjoerddebruin: yes, so we should switch to using separate lines of notices. − Pintoch (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Urlencode for external identifier

Is it possible to urlencode the value in external identifier property? isomeric SMILES (P2017) usually has symbols like '/' etc. which cannot be properly used in an URL without encoding it first, so in many situations link in the property is faulty, e.g.[C@H]1[C@H]([C@@H](C/C(=C/C=C/[C@@H]([C@H](OC(=O)/C(=C\C(=C\[C@H]([C@H]1O)C)\C)/OC)[C@@H](C)[C@H]([C@H](C)[C@]2(C[C@H]([C@@H]([C@H](O2)/C=C/C)C)O)O)O)OC)/C)C)O&zoom=2.0&annotate=cip should be encoded to something like [1] to work properly. Wostr (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: The ID in Wikidata should be the real string form of the ID, whatever it is. URL-encoded strings don't get interpreted properly by the Wikidata client UI anyway. There may be a fix we could work out with the wikidata-exteranlid-url service, you can experiment with it here: or let me know if it doesn't seem to be handling the string properly. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: that does not seem to work for isomeric SMILES (P2017); it returns valid URL (prefix+id+suffix), but it does not encode the identifier:[C@H]1[C@H]([C@@H](C/C(=C/C=C/[C@@H]([C@H](OC(=O)/C(=C\C(=C\[C@H]([C@H]1O)C)\C)/OC)[C@@H](C)[C@H]([C@H](C)[C@]2(C[C@H]([C@@H]([C@H](O2)/C=C/C)C)O)O)O)OC)/C)C)O or maybe I'm doing something wrong? Wostr (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a way to do it, I'll take a look... ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata in bussiness

I'm giving a talk/workshop about Wikidata in few days and wanted to include some info on examples of Wikidata use in bussiness world. Maybe we know something? --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Apple use it, see for example [2]. Ghouston (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Linked Geodata: OpenStreetMap (based commercial and community maps) using this. ( for example: Mapbox ) ; OpenStreetmap has a new name/brand sugestion index for contributors - with banks, shops - with wikidatid ( see : [3] ) ; osm_wiki"brand:wikidata" ; Current tags:osm_taginfo"brand:wikidata" ; Google/Facebook likes Wikidata + OSM : good for SEO ! --ImreSamu (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Google uses it in Knowledge Graph, DuckDuckGo uses it for some of the external identifiers. Jc86035 (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Highest current QID / LID / PID

Is there an API call to figure out the highest Q ID, L ID, or P ID right now? --Denny (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Denny: (Sort of cheating, but...) --Yair rand (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, perfect! :) --Denny (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Highest L is izioki (L171081) --- Jura 04:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
:D perfect, thanks, Jura. I was looking for Yair's answer, but you are correct! (for now) --Denny (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Genus and/or species for Bismarckia

The two items Bismarckia (Q13055333) and Bismarckia nobilis (Q664462) seems to be mixed and intertwined. One of them is supposed to regard the plant genus Bismarckia and the other of them the species Bismarckia nobilis within that genus, but right now it's all a bit confusing. Looking through the different Wikipedia links on Bismarckia nobilis (Q664462) one can see that they sometimes point to a species page, and sometimes to a genus page. I guess one of the problems is that several of the Wikipedias redirect Bismarckia to Bismarckia nobilis since the genus is monotypic and a separate page for the genus therefore seems redundant. This is of course not the case here at Wikidata, where we always keep specific WD items for specific taxa. How can we fix this without mixing up all the identifier links (IPNI, the PlantList, Tropicos, etc.) on each of the item pages? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC).

Pragmatic policy is to keep all the sitelinks together in one item (to make it easier for users to find other pages), in the item of the species in most cases (but in the item for the genus for fossils). When there is a Wikipedia that has pages for both the genus and the species, the sitelinks are split: those for the genus in the genus item, those for the species in the species item. - Brya (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

male / female only parenting

I'd like to suggest a new property in order to distinguish between single, male only or female only, and child rearing by both parents. There are many animal species where the male is the only parent (seahorses, cassowary, ...). Then there is the female does the parenting (tigers, elephants, ...). It would be great if we could add female/male, male/male, and female/female offspring care as well. Thoughts? --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: This has to be discussed on Wikidata:Property proposal. Esteban16 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would be possible and useful to have such a property. - Brya (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up: Upcoming GeneDB item creation

The good folks at GeneDB (Q5531047) are the authoritative source for gene annotation data for about 50 species. They are preparing a new web presence, and they would like to base some of it on Wikidata! As part of this, I have test-imported two of their species genes, and accompanying proteins, as items into Wikidata a while ago, and made a prototype browser for that information. Now that proof-of-concept is established, they would like me to go ahead and import their entire database as Wikidata items. That's about 770K genes, and about as many proteins, so we are talking about ~1.5M new items for this, over the next 1-3 months. All items will have a GeneDB ID (P3382) statement, and various referenced statements about genomic location, taxon, orthologs/paralogs, and function (example items: PPPK-DHPS (Q18970312) and hydroxymethyldihydropterin pyrophosphokinase-dihydropteroate synthase (Q56565045)).

We already have complete genes and proteins for several species (human, mouse, various bacteria), and I believe this will be a real boost, both in network effects (think main subject (P921) for publications), and in establishing Wikidata as a serious, reliable cornerstone of modern science and research. --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is great. ChristianKl❫ 11:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sounds good to me. Have you talked to the User:ProteinBoxBot people to make sure you're not both importing the same things? Are these items that GeneDB (Q5531047) already assert are not yet in Wikidata? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pretty please can someone write a case study for this project? I think it would be super useful to help other organisations understand how Wikidata would be useful for them. I'm very happy to help with a write up John Cummings (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why don't they set up their own wikibase instance and federate it with Wikidata (when that is possible)?--Micru (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't have a strong enough concept of the standards for inclusion here to have a strong opinion, but I share Micru's question. Not as an objection, but out of curiosity, to know how more involved Wikidatans tend to view such decisions. -Pete F (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • They are looking into that possibility, but despite the Docker containers available, this is still early stage technology, and "federation" doesn't really work on wikibase level yet (SPARQL, perhaps). If they set up their own wikibase, they would likely do so to track additional, detailed data that would be unsuitable here. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yay! Thanks! --Denny (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • How would updates happen? --- Jura 08:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #342

Request for filling out a questionnaire on Wikidata

Dear Wikidata enthusiasts, I have a huge favor to ask of everyone reading this --

TLDR: Please fill out the questionnaire linked here!

And now in more details: As some of you may know, I'm PhD candidate at the School of Education, Tel Aviv University, and my research focuses on Wikidata as a learning platform. To succeed in my research, I need lots of data about how users (such as yourselves) interact with Wikidata, so it would be of great help if you could take the time to fill out the questionnaire linked above. It's estimated that it should take between 15-30 minutes, depending on how detailed your answers would be. I'm striving for at least 100 replies, but this is one of those cases of "the more, the merrier", so really, every single person filling it out is of huge help.

If you have any questions, or are willing to participate in a follow up interview, please feel free to ping me via my talk page, privately or by email (shani.even at Thanks in advance for considering filling it out. I will be forever grateful to anyone who can help and promise to update you on my progress. :) Shani Evenstein (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


How about to move all instances of this property from items to appropriate Lexemes? (Only a word can have pronunciation, not a notion) --Infovarius (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a worthy project. ChristianKl❫ 15:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Some items are about words. For example: Donau­dampf­schiffahrts­elektrizitäten­haupt­betriebs­werkbau­unter­beamten­gesellschaft (Q20167), fuck (Q31928). (And if the items have sitelinks, we can’t delete them.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Are Amazonia (Q2841453) and Amazon rainforest (Q177567) the same thing

Hi all

I think that Amazonia (Q2841453) and Amazon rainforest (Q177567) are possibly the same thing? Could someone have a look?


--John Cummings (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In french, one is about a (geographical region), the other about the forest that is located on that region. If the second disappears, the first will still be there, so I think they are different entities. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @TomT0m:, --John Cummings (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

EOL has changed all its URLs/IDs

Encyclopedia of Life (Q82486) has changed all its IDs and URL formats, making Encyclopedia of Life ID (P830) wrong where it is used. Example: Prunus prostrata (Q1258395) links to but should link to Abductive (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I updated the description. You might want to propose a new property for the new scheme. --- Jura 07:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • What, keep the old IDs live on Wikidata, and add the new IDs? Abductive (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • By the way, on how many items is P830 used? Abductive (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, for stability's sake, we don't mix the old and the new scheme. Otherwise data users couldn't be sure what they are getting. --- Jura 07:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave to pesky details on creating a property and editing 1,375,794 items to you guys. Abductive (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: Your claim „EOL has changed all its IDs and URL formats” is wrong.
@Jura: formatter URL (P1630) has to be changed from$1/overview to$1. That solved the general problem.
@Abductive: EOL ids refer to taxon concepts and are a subject to change. In the past we had EOL ids that refered to internally used ids and caused similar errors. Maybe references to The Plant List 1.1 (Q15628808) got new ids. Not sure at the moment.
--Succu (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
In my example the ID is different. That may not always be the case? Anyways, I have already stated that this is not my forte. It's up to you guys to fix or ignore link rot (Q1193907) as you see fit. Abductive (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but rechecking the known 2,237,550 EOL ids against our taxa has a low priority on my todo list. --Succu (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Presumably this can be automated? Perhaps by another with the requisite skill set? Abductive (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your example: Added by User:BotNinja (= User:Termininja). --Succu (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so you don't want to fix it either. I completely understand; this is a volunteer project and nobody knows how to write a program to fix these things. Abductive (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You are wrong and as I told you above this has a low priority on my todo list. --Succu (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
So, you are the only person here capable of doing it? Abductive (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Out of around 200,000 items having both PlantList-ID (P1070) and Encyclopedia of Life ID (P830) around 10,000 EOL ids are wrong now. I will correct them within the next days. --Succu (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Miniature map for coordinate properties

Hello all,

After we deployed the Commons miniature pictures for the image properties, some editors suggested to do something similar with maps. From Wednesday, December 12th, we will also have a miniature map displayed for the properties containing coordinates, like coordinate location (P625). This feature uses mw:Extension:Kartographer and OpenStreetMap.

Viewing the map directly in the item will help the editors to check quickly if the coordinates seem correct, and therefore improve the data quality.

Some useful features:

  • Double-click on the miniature map: display it in full screen
  • On full screen view: click on “external maps” to display different map services and links to many external maps
  • In edit mode: when adding or editing coordinates in the field, the maps is automatically updated to fit the coordinates you entered
  • The coordinates are still displayed under the map and link to Geohack if you have the gadget AuthorityControl enabled

If you have any questions or issues with this feature, let me know. You can also see the related ticket. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Very nice! Will this display for all coordinates, or only for coordinates with globe=Earth (Q2) (the latter is better)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, looks like it displays for all coordinates. I'll ask about this on phabricator. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: No this is just for coordinates on earth, others are exempted (see for example Q499158#P625). Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Aah, I was confusing it with User:Aude/mapview.js in those cases, thanks for the clarification. I've made a couple of other suggestions on the phabricator ticket anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Using qualifier on identifiers for type of record

In the US National Archives catalog, the same identifier set is used for all types of records, including both authority records and descriptions of archival holdings. This is nice, because the number is the only thing a resource you need to know to refer to it. However, I'd like to be able to distinguish the record types on Wikidata, so that we can perform queries on only a single type of record—e.g., see all items with NARA authority IDs. Does anyone have opinions on the best way to do this? The only idea I have is to add it as a qualifier of the identifier, like the example I have done at Q59296199#identifiers. However, I have not seen qualifiers used for external identifier statements before, and I am not sure if object has role (P3831) is the best choice for it, so I was wanted to see what others thought of that before applying it to thousands of items. Thanks for any help! Dominic (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Could we use type of reference (P3865) for this, with a constraint change to allow it to be used as a qualifier for an identifier? - PKM (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking musical settings with source texts

What are the correct properties to use when linking a source text with a musical setting of that source text? and when linking an original melody with a set of alternate lyrics written to that tune at a later date? In these cases the melody and the lyrics will be separate items. Sorry if this has been asked before. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've found has melody (P1625) which looks like it addresses some of what I was looking for... is there a reverse property for back-linking? Is it appropriate to use has melody (P1625) if the musical setting comprises more than only melody? Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Bug fix - references are now accessible for non-logged in users on protected items

Hello all,

Usually I don't announce every small bug fixes that we make, but I thought this one could be interesting for you to know - if you hear someone complaining about this bug, you can tell them it's fixed now :)

Before the fix, on protected or semi-protected items, non-logged in users could not display the references. The references section was folded, the link "X references" was grey and non-clickable, meaning that readers without an account couldn't display or access the references.

This bug is now fixed, non-logged in users can access the references on all items. You can test it quickly by opening Douglas Adams (Q42) in a private session of your browser. If you encounter any issue, feel free to add a comment in the ticket or ping me.

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Q11263220 and Dumbing down (Q5313720) - are they the same and should they be merged?

Q11263220 refers to policies like Fado, Football, and Fatima (Q3539497) or 3S Policy (Q10854388) or Bread and circuses (Q845658) that make people either unable to or doesn't want to care about politics, usually for the purpose of maintaining or strengthening the control of the ruling government on a country/society. Can it be said as equal to dumbing down and thus can the two wikidata items be merged? C933103 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I think you want said to be the same as (P460) here, not a merge. - Jmabel (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I see. Then, how should Q11263220 be named in English? C933103 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
      • It seems close to George Orwell's prolefeed (Q17104684). --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Close to but not close enough to be use as translation, especially one is fictional, and then also the English term was used to refer to the media while the wikidata item describe a policy.... C933103 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Warning about Wikidata property example (P1855)

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE)
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
John Samuel
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Was a bee
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
ZI Jony
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

Currently, Wikidata property example is mandatory for every property but it is suitable only for properties whose datatype is "item". For properties with a different datatype there are Wikidata property example for properties, Wikidata property example for lexemes, Wikidata property example for forms and Wikidata property example for senses.

How to replace the current constraint with a better one?--Malore (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The recent court judgement for West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408)

The High Court of Hong Kong has made a judgement on 13 December 2018. According to paragraph 64 of the Judgement, Judge Anderson Chow said:

It is not in dispute that the West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408) falls with the territory of Hong Kong under the “Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No 221” dated 1 July 1997, which was promulgated in accordance with the “Decision of the National People’s Congress on the Establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress on 4 April 1990.

That means the correct statement is West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408) located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) Hong Kong (Q8646)!!!! 14:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the document you linked says "Mainland Port Area", not "Kowloon Mainland Port Area". Anyway, I do not know anything of this. --Ogoorcs (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you should spend some time to read the Judgement. 12:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Where does Wikidata's data come from?

Sincere apologies if this is answered somewhere, I haven't found anything.

I know the general answer is "lots of places;" individual and institutional donors via dataset imports. But I'm curious about Wikidata's relationship to Wikipedia. Is Wikidata also populated by Wikipedia scrapers?

The reason I ask is that I've been trying to build a database of events (as in moments or spans in history) by querying for any entities with any of the following props: point in time (P585),start time (P580),date of birth (P569),inception (P571). (I assume there are others that would be applicable too but this is what I have so far)

So then I get some thousands of results that vary radically in quality (not surprising). I can filter those down to, say, entities that have titles (quite a few do not, apparently) and some other conditions.

I end up with a bunch of event entities, but I've noticed some surprising/baffling trends in this data. Other than the assorted bits and pieces you'd expect, there are HUNDREDS upon hundreds of entities like this:

All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship 1969 1965 Scottish League Cup Final 1964 Malaysia Open Badminton Championships – Men's doubles

And hundreds upon hundreds of entities like this:

Los Angeles mayoral election, 1969 Honduran Constituent Assembly election, 1965 Tuscan regional election, 1970

From what I can tell, these two categories of sporting events and elections outnumber all the other data by a large margin. So I assume these patterns are due to data dumps from, say, a sporting history database and, say, an election database.

I've never seen any kind of provenance field for an entity, so I'm not sure if the source of the data is recorded anywhere. But ultimately, I'm just trying to build a massive world event database and hopefully contribute back to Wikidata. It's looking like I will need to write my own Wikipedia scraper(s) to get more data than is currently in Wikidata—does that sound right?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 0x73DB07 (talk • contribs).

Your pattern assumption is wrong. All of the titles you picked out are wikidata items created to mirror English wikipedia articles - e.g. All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship 1969 (Q4728160), 1965 Scottish League Cup Final (Q4484641) - the item records provide a link to the wikipedia article. Some statements on both items have references specifying that the data was imported from En.Wikipedia. In general a) the vast majority of wikipedia articles have corresponding wikidata items but b) varying and generally limited amounts of statements on items have been derived from the wikipedia article. There are tools (e.g. this, these) designed to scrape information from wikipedia records and apply to wikidata items. As far too many wikidata items lack core statements such as dates, the probability is more information can be scraped from the linked wikipedia articles, though clearly this is a non-trivial task. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Hundreds of items" means in Wikidata, that there are relatively few items of a given class. If you click on "Random item" a few times you will see that Wikidata has a lot more items for places and scientific articles then it has for events,
While unfortunately not all claims on Wikidata have provenance information a lot of them do. You find it under the references of an claim. If you for example look at those items referenced by Tagishsimon you will find that the reference contain information that certain claims come from Wikipedia. It's also useful to look at the history of an article to see how the information got into the article if you are interested in that question. ChristianKl❫ 11:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

symmetric constraint (Q21510862) works only for properties with an "item" datatype

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE)
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
John Samuel
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Was a bee
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
ZI Jony
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

I think it should be possible to use the constraint also for properties with datatypes other than "item"--Malore (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Malore: do you have an example? I don't see how it can work with something else than items. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: it should work with other entities that can have statements, such as properties, lexemes, senses and forms. @Malore: I added such a constraint to Sandbox-Lexeme (P5188) and am now seeing constraint violations on Lexeme:L123#P5188, so it seems to be working as far as I can tell? (The documentation may need to be updated in places to reflect this, as JakobVoss did in this edit.) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, obviously, Danke Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE)! Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): It works but in the property talk it says constraint “symmetric constraint (Q21510862)” declaration error: “the constraint is not applicable to datatype “Lexeme””.--Malore (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Malore: okay, that’s a problem with Module:Constraints (specifically cItemOrPropertyonlyConstraints should probably be something like cEntityOnlyConstraints, with a corresponding change in verifyPropertyDatatype). --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ORCID scheduled outage

The ORCID API and website will be offline for planned maintenance, tomorrow for about 8 hours, from 2pm UTC; see; [4].

In particular, I've asked Magnus to take the relevant part of SourceMD offline during the outage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's get serious about norms of behavior

Hi folks.

I think Wikidata needs clearer, explicit norms of behavior. And I think it needs them now, before it's a huge problem.

Please take a moment to read my draft meta-proposal and use the talk page to share your thoughts. I'd like participation to be as broad as possible, to ensure we get the best outcome for our community. Thanks! Asaf Bartov (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Label when adding a wikipedia page

Can someone explain me why the title of a wiki page is not automatically used for the label of the item when a wikipedia page is added in that language from the wikipedia? It is this way by default if you create an item, but not if you only add a link to a wikipedia page. Why is that behaviour of the Wikipedia tool? Thanks in advance, Paucabot (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

As I recall (and it has been a while), this is because of the Wikipedia problem with disambiguation of names, so for people and places (the bulk of early Wikidata items) you would have "Saint Mary's Church, (XXX)" where the XXX is for location, which is generally placed in the description, not the label. That is just one example, but there are many more. Nowadays it might be worth reinvestiging this decision. Jane023 (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it a technical problem? Because I think it is worse to have no label than to have misplaced parentheses ... Paucabot (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not a technical problem. It's just that the code to enforce/undertake addition of a label based on the sitelink is not in place, because no-one has thought it a good idea to make it so, largely for the reasons set out by Jane023. I have some sympathy for your view, but equally sympathy for the notion that labels are important enough that we don't fudge them. Next, your idea /might/ sort out a single or a small set of language label values, albeit at the cost of the addition of suboptimal labels, but it's not applicable across the board: the Thai label taken from a Thai article is not much use for the English langauge label. Given there are ~200 languages wanting labels, the solution doesn't go very far. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I'm not asking for the label to be automatically set in every language, only for one language: if I'm adding a catalan sitelink, then this text would be automatically used for the label in catalan only. Paucabot (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I created a ticket for a similar idea at phab:T148762 a couple of years ago, where the label would not be set automatically, but where the user is given the choice to set the label for the connected Wikidata item.

Unfortunately, nothing has come out of it yet, but if more people show their interest in features like this, maybe we could finally get something implemented. --Njardarlogar (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Njardarlogar:. I'll ask it there. Paucabot (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have seen that there is a bot (@MatSuBot:) that does this kind of work: Special:diff/800581443. If it's done with a bot I don't see any reason why not do it automatically from the beginning. Paucabot (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Paucabot: I don't agree that a strictly automatic solution is good, because then a lot of labels would get wrong capitalization, and the user would have to go over to Wikidata to correct the labels, anyway, if they want the labels to be correct. Automatic labels should be better than the current state, where no labels are added at all (with the exception of the work of bots); but you should be able to adjust the label in the dialogue where you connect the page to item, such that you can ensure that the capitalization is correct and that no disambiguation is present in the label. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar: If, anyway, I have to go to Wikidata to get things done, I prefer only having to change capitalization or removing disambiguations than having to add everything from scratch. Maybe even we could get rid of the parentheses automatically ...
Have you seen T58410? They have discarded offering to change the label as an option. Having done so, I think that a strictly automatic solution is better than the current situation. Paucabot (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Having corrected lots of item labels (for various reasons different from Wikipedia titles) I think it's not a good idea to do this automatically, unless it is offered as a yes/no pop-up option when the sitelink is created. Then it is up to the user to have the whole title copied into the label or not. Even this may be a bad idea, I am not too sure how often "Wikipedians with zero Wikidata experience" actually add sitelinks by hand. Jane023 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jane023: Maybe you're right, but this behaviour is not very coherent with the actual behaviour of the tool if the item does not exist (it copies the sitelink to the label) or with the existence of bots that do exactly this work. Paucabot (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Paucabot: In the ticket I created (which is still open), I actually address the concern about casual users mentioned by hoo (see my reply to Edgars2007): the option for adjusting the label could be under an "advanced" section, or even completely hidden unless the user opts in on the feature in the user settings. I'd also add that connecting Wikipedia pages in different languages is already some distance into advanced users territory, so the addition of an "advanced" section should not be very problematic. If you are really sceptical about such a section and think it will confuse inexperienced users, you could even have it appear only after the user has connected 10 pages.
Regarding the concern about making the linkItem code more complicated, I don't know how important that is; but I doubt it would/should be that much more complicated to e.g. make it launch a new dialogue with its own code that allows the user to set the label after the page has been connected to the item. Again,such a dialogue could not show at all by default, or the user could choose to have the dialogue never appear again.
In short: if there is a will to implement such a feature, there is almost certainly a way. :-) --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, @Njardarlogar:. Paucabot (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
How about having a popup in case a new Wikilink gets entered in a language that doesn't already have a label that suggests adding the title as a label but leaving the user the option to adapt it as well? ChristianKl❫ 13:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be fine for me, @ChristianKl:. Paucabot (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Paucabot: I'm also very interested in a (semi-)automatic solution. Speaking for North Frisian (frr:) --Murma174 (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I describe population of a species

Hi all

I'd like to add the population of African elephants to African bush elephant (Q36557), the only thing I can find is population (P1082) which is specific to humans, are we missing a property or am I just missing the magic words?


--John Cummings (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I think its uncommon to see items about species with their amount of individuals. I've searched on Special:ListProperties and I found nothing. Esteban16 (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This was asked recently at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2018/10#Number_of_peoples_or_animals_among_a_nationality_/_population_/_breed. How to model this appears to be unresolved. (A solution to this would also need a way to indicate species populations within a particular area at particular times.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: quantity (P1114) View with SQID. Taxons are classes of individuals and number is supposed to give the number of instances, hence individuals, of that class. author  TomT0m / talk page 20:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@TomT0m:, thanks, could you give an example item where this has been used? Quantity seems like a strangely worded way of saying it. --John Cummings (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Maybe the english label is just wrong because if I remember correctly the proposal time, it’s the exact purpose of the proposal. author  TomT0m / talk page 07:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @TomT0m:, I tried to find the conversation about the property proposal which describes how the property can be used but I can't find it, any ideas? --John Cummings (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it’s a weird situation, the link provided in the property statements is . The creation is acknoledged but it seems the discussion is lost. @Zolo: Any idea what happenned ?
Thanks to wikiblame we can find the initial proposal :
(I was pinged for the creation it seems but I can’t find any trace of the interventions I had in this. I’m pretty sure I participated though, weird. Old times.) author  TomT0m / talk page 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sry, TomT0m taxon (Q16521) and population (Q2625603) are not about the same concept. I assume the question is about how many individual (Q795052) we have on earth at a certain point in time, John Cummings? --Succu (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Succu I know, but John points on a taxon item, not a population one. The property he points to has quantity datatype, so it’s not supposed to link taxon items to populations of this taxon items. So you’re correct about the meaning of the property. I pointed John to a property that is supposed to store exactly that. author  TomT0m / talk page 20:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but as far as I'm aware there are several disjoint populations of African bush elephant (Q36557) out there... --Succu (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I had the same question but it did not seem that it was what John wanted. Anyway that’s interesting, do we have a model for this ? author  TomT0m / talk page 20:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @TomT0m: and @Succu:, maybe it would be helpful to give you the source rather than me trying to explain what I'm trying to do, I want to add the fact there are 415,000 African elephants. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings: as suggested by TomT0m and Yair rand :
⟨ African bush elephant (Q36557) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ quantity (P1114) View with SQID ⟨ 415000 ⟩
(if needed, with qualifier and reference) is probably the best way to go. For an example, see Gavialis gangeticus (Q17134). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @VIGNERON:, it looks like Gavialis gangeticus (Q17134) displays the same information as both population and quantity, I guess the population statements should be removed? My issue with using quantity as a phrase is that population is the correct terminology for number of individuals of a species. --John Cummings (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: The english label of the property has changed, see the discussion on Property_talk:P1114. You might want to reopen the topic of the english label, but the current naming should not be a blocker. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding edit summaries

I've edited English Wikipedia for years and am used to adding an edit summary to each edit I make there. Here on Wikidata I haven't found a way to do that when editing the contents of an item. Am I missing a trick somewhere? DeFacto (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not possible on Wikidata. I think this design design decision might be due to Wikidata being designed to be multilingual. ChristianKl❫ 11:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, it's only possible to give an edit summary when adding new data if you use the API, rather than the web interface. Most of the time there shouldn't really be a need for a summary though, as it's fairly obvious what you're doing (especially if you've provided a reference). However, if you want to correct existing data, one way to do that is to undo the change that created the current data, before adding a new value. The undo allows you to leave a summary message, and also notifies the person who originally made that addition. This is sometimes seen as a quite aggressive thing to do if the change is minimal or additive (e.g. you're changing a year-precision date to day-precision), but if you believe the original data is actively wrong, then it's generally seen as a good way of both providing more context, and letting the original editor know about it. --Oravrattas (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add custom edit summaries. Wikidata is not only edited by English users. Wikidata is adding automated summaries which are translatable. If you add custom summaries they are not translated and you penalize people from other language regions. 12:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I would like to see "destructive" edits have an edit summary. That way we know why someone is changing data already in existence. Lazypub (talk)

Okay, now I feel a bit wiser. Thanks to those who replied. DeFacto (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Would love some input on Q59739910 "critically acclaimed"

We are constantly being told that a book, film, record, this, that or other thing is "critically acclaimed". I would love to try to quantify that a little. Love some input from you guys (is this already covered somehow, perhaps in another language?) and if anyone feels the calling - why not create the opposite "critically panned/panned by critics"😁. Moebeus (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems questionably subjective. There are quantifications available like Rotten Tomatoes ratings, but I suppose they are constantly changing. Still, adding a Rotten Tomatoes rating with a point in time seems better than just saying "critically acclaimed". Ghouston (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: While a critic's opinion is absolutely 100% subjective, the fact that the critic rates something highly is not. The point of "critically acclaimed" would be to tag music albums, books, films, etc. that end up on End-of-year lists, "100 Best Movies"-lists, etc. Moebeus (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • To add Q59739910, I suppose you'd identify some reference. Such a reference would be a list like Q7711726 where you added this. If done, one want might as well add Q7711726 directly and let users decide which critics they want to follow. Some people are fond of one award or the other and add these. --- Jura 16:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: An item could absolutely be both critically acclaimed and critically panned at the same time, according to whom would be evident by looking at the reference. 41+ million hits on Google for "critically acclaimed" indicates that this is a term used quite a bit, yet it's often not obvious to see where the claim stems from. Q59739910 is simply an attempt to make it easier to track down *why* a restaurant, movie or record is mentioned in this way. Moebeus (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think we could use a better way to include reviews .. --- Jura 18:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hard not to agree with that. What can we do about it, any ideas? Moebeus (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Currently, I think they mostly use "described at URL". We could try a new URL property and get a bot to add qualifiers to the url (author, etc, if this can be automatically done somehow). --- Jura 19:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
See discussion above on book reviews for some ideas. We could also add a property for “Metacritic score”, and of course there’s “award received” for films landing on some critic's Year's Ten Best (or Worst) Films List. - PKM (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The above works if there is already an item, but I'm not sure if there is much benefit in creating 50 items for reviews of each film. We do have properties to add scores, but personally I'm more interested in descriptive reviews, "scientific" or not. --- Jura 20:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Q3331189 with Property:P1343 is a constraint violation

Something has changed because in October everything was fine. imino group (Q4200270) described by source (P1343) Nomenklatura związków organicznych. Rekomendacje IUPAC i nazwy preferowane 2013 (version 2) (Q56846514) (Nomenklatura związków organicznych. Rekomendacje IUPAC i nazwy preferowane 2013 (version 2) (Q56846514) instance of (P31) version, edition, or translation (Q3331189)) is a constraint violation now. Why is that? Wostr (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

References not to displayed unfolded

Is there a way the references not to displayed unfolded when there is a constraint violation within the reference? It really makes my constributions difficult. Xaris333 (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Displaying the reference unfolded when there is a constraint violation is done on purpose: this way, we encourage the community to fix either the content or the constraint. However, if many people complain about it and wish for a way to fold the references, we're ready to think about it further. I hope this answer helps you. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): I understand why that was applied. But for me it is very difficult. Because of that problem Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/11#single-value constraint with title property, in many items that I am adding properties, the references are display unfolded. Xaris333 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I think we really need to clean up the constraint then. I know this sucks but it's better to fix the underlying issue than glossing over it :/ --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): How to clean up? The references are correct. The constraint is correct. @Jura1: Xaris333 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems a bit of an overkill to add the title twice at Q6377735#P1082, but not at all the item about the source itself Cyprus census 1976 (Q29639032). If you use "stated in", I don't think the reference should even include title. Maybe Help:Sources needs to clarify this. --- Jura 19:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Some references have titles in more than one language. Is not a solution just not to add them. Xaris333 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you give a couple of samples? --- Jura 09:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/04#Title Xaris333 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks. Looks like a non-issue then. I found three samples there:

  1. Q6377735 with 262 in population. It was discussed above. The titles were incorrectly added in references instead of the item about the source (Q29639013). If you move them there it should take care of it.
  2. Q25991162 and Q25991163 which don't have the problem as the title (P1476) is used as main value.

That said, maybe non-mandatory constraint violations don't need to have the references displayed unfolded. --- Jura 08:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

And how that can be done? How the non-mandatory constraint violations don't need to have the references displayed unfolded? (I disaggreei that the titles were incorreclty added). Xaris333 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • It would need to be a development, but I'd rather see a couple of samples that match Help:Sources. --- Jura 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE):, @Jura1: Problem still exist, and no solution. The changes make my contributions difficult and no solution... There is no respect to users that constribute to wikipedia. It was supposed that the changes would make our work easiest, no more difficult... Xaris333 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel like there is less an issue with the software than an issue with the definition of the constraint. I can't intervene on content discussion. And changing the software is not the best way to solve content issues. However, I can create a ticket asking to keep references with non-mandatory constraints folded, if this is what you request. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Yes. Please do this. Xaris333 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of P642

In your opinion, is this use of of (P642) a good thing? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Car series

As we probably know, car manufacturers have a tendency to re-use car model names for successive (often very different) models in the same sector. For example we have Jaguar XJ (X308) (Q1678516), Jaguar XJ (X350) (Q1678522) and Jaguar XJ (X351) (Q1678526) which are successive generations of the Jaguar XJ. Note too that the different generations are stated as being instances of automobile model (Q3231690) (which they clearly are) but should they also be instances of Jaguar XJ series (Q1142339), which itself should be an instance of something like "series of car model", rather than of automobile model (Q3231690) too? Any advice or opinion on how this should be structured would be appreciated. DeFacto (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not instances of Jaguar XJ series (Q1142339) but subclasses of it. ChristianKl❫ 11:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok, and should they remain as an instances of automobile model (Q3231690) too? And what should Jaguar XJ series (Q1142339) be - it is currently also an instance of automobile model (Q3231690). DeFacto (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's apparently the automobile equivalent to mobile phone series (Q20488450). Ghouston (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl, Ghouston: thanks for those comments, I've created automobile model series (Q59773381) and made Jaguar XJ series (Q1142339) an instance of it, and each model in the series (e.g. Jaguar XJ (X351) (Q1678526)) a subclass of that. Does that look correct to you? DeFacto (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks good to me. ChristianKl❫ 14:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia hackathon: apply for a scholarship until January 4th

Hello all,

The Wikimedia hackathon 2019 will take place in Prague, at the National Library of Technology, on May 17th to 19th.

The registration is now open. Please note that the deadline to apply for a scholarship is January 4th, 2019.

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly articles that are book reviews

If a scholarly article is a book review, should the “main subject” be the edition of the book, or the subject of the book, or both? - PKM (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@PKM: In the absence of a single value constraint on P921, I see no harm in using both. Mahir256 (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@PKM:Typical problem when mixing different classifications: scholarly article is a text format, book review is about the content of a text. WikiProject Books should once fix the classification by analyzing in detail the characteristics of a book. Snipre (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Snipre: While a "scholarly article" as used in WD is clearly more like an "edition" than a work (based on its properties), currently, "scholarly article" is <subclass of> "article" is <sublcass of> "work" (while also being a subclass of "publication"). If you have an idea of a way to separate "publications" from "works", please lay it out so we can discuss - I agree this area is fuzzy. But I would say that a "book review" is a type of article either way. In any case, I would not recommend or support making separate "work" and "edition" items for every scholarly article in WD. That way lies madness. - PKM (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@PKM: In relation to your original question, I think "main subject" should point to the book-edition. The item should also be identified somehow (genre?) as a book review. I am dubious about "main subject" also pointing to the book-subject. How much would one learn about the book-subject in the round from the book review? Possibly an case for a weaker subject indicator, perhaps the proposed subject keyword property? Jheald (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald:, that's my first instinct as well. book review (Q637866) is currently a genre, so that part works. Lots of missing books, alas. Also, we have 2789 items with <instance of> "book review". - PKM (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Just going to throw in that IMO academic journal article (Q18918145) is more accurate than scientific article (Q13442814) for the instance of (P31) statement of a book review. Circeus (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Circeus: Agreed! - PKM (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

My two cents, @PKM: I created Le nom de peuple Rhedones (Q52160525) some times ago. What do y'all think? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: That's very nice! - PKM (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't "book review" be a property, rather than an item, as Q637866?
Example: I just created Q59319726 for a book. A published review of that book was previously available as Q58565334. There should be a way to link these two. If "book review" were a property, one could then specify the book as a property of the review. ???
We need some way to link a review with the book it reviewed. Please suggest an alternative or endorse this. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Another example: Q58570163 is a review of a book for which a Wikidata seems not yet to exist. I plan to create a Wikidata entry for that book.
Shouldn't the "scholarly article" that is a book review have a property = "review of" being the book? And shouldn't the book have a property "reviewed as", being the review?
I see properties "review score", "review score by", and "reviewed by". None of these sound to me like either "review of" or "reviewed as".
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy: I have no problem using the existing "main subject" to include the meaning "review of", but I wouldn't object to a separate property "review of" in lieu of both "main subject" and <instance of> "book review" for these items. That would be a very clean solution. - PKM (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've also run into a number of "scholarly articles" that are reviews of museum exhibitions. I've addressed these by creating items for the exhibitions and linking from the review using "main subject". (See ‘Opus Anglicanum: Masterpieces of English Medieval Embroidery’, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1 October 2016–5 February 2017 (Q57678571).) Whatever solution we come to should probably handle other types of reviews than book reviews (so if we make a new property "review at" or somesuch, it could accept reviews of plays, films, exhibitions, and books. - PKM (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@PKM: I wonder if a similar effort is due for "scholarly articles" that are letters to the editor. Trilotat (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Les Républicains

Should Union for a Popular Movement (Q173152) and The Republicans (Q20012759) be merged? 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It was not only renamed Les Républicains, but it is the succesor of Union pour un mouvement populaire. Considering that, I think they shouldn't be merged. Esteban16 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replaces (P1365) / replaced by (P1366) ? - Jmabel (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
They can't be merged as long as they have separate articles on frwiki. Ghouston (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
No it shouldn't and can't be merged. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Still nothing but unsubstantiated claims that the later is the successor of the former? Is there anything except a name change? 02:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Summarizing the above: we can't merge if fr-wiki has two separate articles, but replaces (P1365) / replaced by (P1366) explains the relationship. In addition, you could use said to be the same as (P460), preferably with a reference. - Jmabel (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's mostly a name change (and some others changes like in the statutes) but most Wikipedias (not just fr-wiki) decides to have 2 articles, so Wikidata is bound to follow Wikipedias, there is no choice (except if all Wikipedia article are merged, which seems very unlikely). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Although, if anyone can find a Wikipedia which has combined the two, it would be the Bonnie and Clyde problem and in principle 3 items would be needed on Wikidata. Ghouston (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata growth compared to Wikipedia or Commons growth over the last 3 year

Just wondering, are there any comparisons available?

Sometimes I hear that enwiki somehow stopped growing. Some (or a) language version have a reputation for essentially being centered on the main country speaking that language and not really appealing to people from other countries with potential contributors writing in the same language. There seem to be one or two small wikis where WMF paid for contributions (or translations?). How did these work out? --- Jura 09:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

EnWiki is relatively stable over the last three years. Wikidata had 4571 editor with (5+ edits) in December 2015 and has now 6994 which means that we grew by roughly 50% in the last three years. ChristianKl❫ 14:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
It kinda depends on the metric you look at: edit rate, number of users per period, number of user with N+ edits per period, number of pages, new pages rate, etc. has pretty excessive statistics about many Wikimedia wikis, so you might want compare by yourself… —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • For Wikidata, I think users >150 contributions per month in item/lexeme namespace are probably relevant. For Wikipedia this is probably much lower. I think content growth is probably easier to measure at Wikidata than at Wikipedia. Also, content ages differently. The question is what we can learn something from their approach leading to growth or shrinking. --- Jura 14:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
« small wikis where WMF paid for contributions » where did you heard that? I strongly doubt that the WMF would go into paid-editing. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it had been done for an Indian language and I suppose we all have seen it happening at Wikidata. --- Jura 14:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

when to add references?

Take ISNI (P213) or VIAF ID (P214) as example. The information added into the field opens an external link that takes you directly to the information. On a page I follow, I saw someone add the ISNI number and then used the VIAF number as a reference. Which is all well and good, but isn't the ISNI number its own reference?Lazypub (talk)

  • It's possible that some users add P214 as reference if the matching was done by VIAF rather than by themselves. Others might just repeat it even if VIAF didn't mention the Wikidata item. They probably understand references differently. Also you could have a VIAF id as reference for the ISNI if it was copied from VIAF (not that I think that is a good idea, but that's a different question). --- Jura 14:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Having as source the original database for an identifier is the best, but if the database is not open then better have a second open source. If the original database is open then this is not a problem to have several reference for the same value. This ensure a better reliability but cross-checking the information.
And I will finish saying that the url only is not a proper way to source a statement: the name of the database, the retrieval date/publication date and if possible the title of the entry in the database should be added according to Help:Sources. Why ? Just try to display a reference in WP using data from WD and you will understand that a single url is not really nice to read. Snipre (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

New page Help:Copyrights

I started new page discussing data model for copyright statements on Wikidata and in the future on Structured data on Commons. Please review, correct and expand. --Jarekt (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Jarekt:, I've made a link at the top to a page with information about copyright and database rights for data since the page you've created has a similar subject. I don't know if I got the formatting of the sentence quite correct, please do change if needed. --John Cummings (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

rural versus urban populations

Looking for thoughts on my question here. Asaf Bartov (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Structuring WikiProjects?

Is there a process to structure WikiProjects by defining them as actual Wikidata entries? If the Wikiproject is simple, one could imagine listing the different types of items and their associated properties as statements about the Wikiproject itself. Maybe this has been done before, does anyone have a reference? 07:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes we have on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) used e.g. on Rachel Ruysch (Q234385). Jane023 (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There's also maintained by WikiProject (P6104). See, for example Q11424#P6104, or items such as WikiProject Beer (Q13341435) --Oravrattas (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice to be able to do all of this in a more automated way (requiring less edits) and categorize items based on wiki project focus on the fly. ·addshore· talk to me! 12:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

problems merging O Holy Night (Q128008) into Minuit, chrétiens (Q59653365)

I get a strange error message when trying to merge Q128008 into Q59653365 saying "The two items cannot be merged because one of them links to the other using the properties: P747, P5059, P629", which label these entries as translations, modified versions, and editions of each other. According to that illogical error message, each of the Wikipedia articles should have a separate Wikidata entity! The whole point is that this is the same song sung in different translations and different versions in different countries and they should all be easily accessible from one Wikipedia to another. --Espoo (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Translations are considered different entities and get separate items on Wikidata. Ghouston (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles don't actually get their own Wikidata items. Wikipedia articles about the same entity can be sitelinked to a single item about that entity, regardless of their language. I suppose if the Wikidata "editions" idea was taken to its logical conclusion, you would indeed want a separate Wikidata item for each Wikipedia article, and sitelinks would break.Ghouston (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Espoo: remember also that Wikipedia is not the only site served by Wikidata. s:Minuit, chrétiens and s:O Holy Night are two separate items on Wikisource as well. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

BBLD ID - blocked by Jura1 - mistakes stay unfixed

Jura1 made the BBLD IDs blocked for IP editing. This causes inability for IP contributors to fix broken IDs, e.g. Q55103524: 04:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Please contact WMF foundation if you think your IPs have been blocked in error. If blocks on user accounts should be lifted, please make sure to have them lifted prior to any other edit (as IP or not). --- Jura 09:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Member of

I just to adding countries membership to the United Nations Security Council, starting from Brazil (Q155) based on en:List of members of the United Nations Security Council. Is what I'm doing to Brazil (Q155) is correct? --Hddty. (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect constraint violation

Yelp ID (P3108) is throwing up a seemingly incorrect constraint violation on 1438 Northwest 46th Street (Q59855710), saying that house (Q3947) isn't a subclass of geographic location (Q2221906) (even though it is). Is this a bug? Jc86035 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure that house (Q3947) is currently *not* a subclass of geographic location (Q2221906), see this query. Should it? —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: The query is correct; house (Q3947) is subclass of residential building (Q11755880) is subclass of building (Q41176) is subclass of location (Q17334923) (geographic location (Q2221906) is subclass of location (Q17334923)). Should the constraint or the items be changed? Jc86035 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You should change the subclass to geographical object (Q618123). geographic location (Q2221906) is just about the position, geographical object (Q618123) is about a object or a place that are located. --Fralambert (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

What are the best modelled items for your areas of interest?

Hi all

Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling Model items. E.g the item for William Shakespeare (Q692) is a good example to follow for creating items about playwright (Q214917). These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.

We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having William Shakespeare (Q692) as a model item for playwright (Q214917), while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia.

You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at Wikidata:Model items. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.


John Cummings (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

How William Shakespeare (Q692) is a model item? 21 constraint violations, no sources for many statements, some P143-pseudoreferences, and most references to websites have only URL without any other information like title, access date, author etc. I wouldn't say that this is a good example to follow. At least constraint violations should be fixed... Wostr (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Wostr:, I'm happy to work on improving the number of referenced statements if you could help with constriant violations (I don't understand them well). --John Cummings (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Other than P172, most don't need fixing. Besides that, there might be too many "notable works". --- Jura 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this model item idea is about. But if it's supposed to be about good examples, an item like William Shakespeare (Q692) that violates our rules doesn't do the job and would do better as an example of what not to do. ethnic group (P172) should not be used without sources.
Being a good example isn't about having the maximum number of statements. ChristianKl❫ 16:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @ChristianKl:, @Jura1:, @Wostr: could you describe what you think good examples should include? and also if possible ideas on how these could be queried. Setting up queries and guidance to help people find the best examples to include as model items is important to get right --John Cummings (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  • (1) references – this is imo one of the biggest problem in WD that statements do not have any sources or are P143-pseudosourced; this is an issue that's raised in many projects in discussions about whether or not re-use WD statements in those projects; 'model items' should encourage people to add references and show how to do it properly (so not only an URL which cannot be re-used as a reference in a Wikimedia projects, not only P143 etc.), (2) no constraint violations – if there is a correct statement which is also a constraint violation, then constraint should be checked or an exception added to this constraint. (3) Also, maybe 'model items' should not be overloaded with dozens or hundreds of statements/external-id, because it may be harder for someone to look through entire element and learn anything from it. Imo it would be better to choose a few elements with a relatively small number of statements (all the necessary statements for a given subject, but not a bunch of others that would only confuse the user, like dozens of external-ids in William Shakespeare (Q692)), but elements that show (i) diversity of a specific subject (with about 5 items from a specific subject that should be possible to achieve) and (ii) diversity (or maybe complexicity) of data that may be added to WD, i.e. not only simple statements with references, but things like nature of statement (P5102), sourcing circumstances (P1480), determination method (P459), criterion used (P1013), with images using media legend (P2096) and other qualifiers, with external-ids having mapping relation type (P4390) (with different values, not only exactMatch relation), with different ranks (+ reason for deprecation (P2241)) etc. Wostr (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Wostr:, can you think of how these things could be included into a query? --John Cummings (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Something that has obvious errors can't really be a model. I don't understand why you picked Q131758. Did you actually look at the item? --- Jura 19:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Its was used as as the best example of a TV series by Wikidata:WikiProject_Movies, I don't know anything about the series, if you can see errors please fix them :) --John Cummings (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The items tend to evolve .. if you add it now, please make sure it's still a model to follow. --- Jura 09:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this object for real? (and other questions)

Hi. I have been poking around Wikidata, trying to put everything together in my head. I have experience with editing in Wikipedia. My particular interest is in botany, and specifically orchids. While preparing to add some data, I came across this:

Bulky, Heavy, Expensive, but Very Good: Quattrocchi's "World Dictionary of Plant Names" (Q28959132) CRC World Dictionary of Plant Names.

Am I missing something? Is this the correct and only entry for the CRC WD of Plant Names? Or is this someone's little joke?

While I'm here, some other questions: I wanted to add data to the entry for Polystachya neobenthamia Polystachya neobenthamia (Q10350959). According to the CRC WD Plant Names (my reference, hence my first question above) this plant was named for or after George Bentham, George Bentham (Q731808). Is there a list of properties, or do I need to learn the query language? How do I know which property, amongst what is no doubt several similar properties, is the correct one for something being named after someone in this way?

And last one: in the case of synonymy for plants (eg Polystachya neobenthamia has some other bionomial epithets that are synonyms for the accepted name), is this more than just an alias? I would've thought so ... but from my limited snooping around, I haven't seen any entries for synonymy. Are common names for plants placed in their aliases? I'm a little confused by Dendrobium speciosum (Q1056409), which seems to be named by its common name, with its bionomial as an alias. Is this a policy?

Is there a WikiProject here for Plants yet?

Sorry for being a nuisance. I realise this project is still developing its guidelines and policies ... but I do see it has great potential, and if anyone can implement such an ambitious project, the WikiMedia Foundation can. Prime Lemur (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for the info. As I get time, I'll start exploring what people are talking about here on Wikidata.
Some points
  • There is not a WikiProject Plants, but there is Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy (also see the Tutorial).
  • Synonyms (incorrect names) can be added by using "taxon synonym", but only if there is an item for the synonym (this can be created if not there). There is some support for having a property allowing data type string for entering synonyms, but apparently insufficient.
  • Polystachya neobenthamia was obviously not named for George Bentham (but after the genus Neobenthamia) so if you want to enter this with CRC as a reference, you should deprecate this since CRC is obviously wrong.
  • Policy on labels was copied from enwiki, and it still states that the common name should be the label. However, there can easily be five items for homotypic names, which by this policy would have the same label and description. Pragmatically speaking, all items dealing with taxa should have the taxon name as the label. It will be awhile before this is actually realized.
Brya (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #343

Merge request

Please merge Q20918793 into Q1238125, as it seems I cannot do that on mobile. 12:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thai birth dates not importing correctly or in the same way as Thai death dates

For some reason the birthdates from Thai Wikipedia seem to include the Thai birth year in Western format though the death dates have been correctly converted. Example item: Roengchitcharaeng Abhakorn (Q13025735). This is messing up some listeria lists I keep which is why I noticed. It appears to be a problem when importing metadata from Wikipedia. I think someone needs to check the tool in use. At first I just thought it was a problem with fictional humans not being correctly identified by P31, but this is clearly an import error. I hope someone can fix it soon, thx. Jane023 (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Be even more careful with importing the Thai dates before 1941, as BE 2483 was the last year which began on March 1st. Only since 1941 the offset is exactly 543 years. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You might want to contact the user directly. He should be aware of it. At least the tool has/had a notice about it. The tool should work slightly better than MediaWiki Thai date conversion .. --- Jura 15:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Property to record supervisory relationship between public bodies

I am looking for the property that would be most suitable to record the relationship between a government agency (Q327333) and its "supervising" public body (most often a ministry (Q192350)) that controls, supervises, instructs it.

part of (P361) is not good, because these agencies are legally separate entities, not part of each other. owned by (P127) and parent organization (P749) are not good, because there is no relationship of ownership among them. founded by (P112) is not good, because the founder is often different from the supervisor (e.g. the agency is set up by the legislature (Q11204) in a law which entrusts a ministry (Q192350) to exercise supervisory power over the agency). Any other ideas? If not, should there be a new property for this relationship? --Tdombos (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would have used parent organization (P749) - I believe that indicates a chain of responsibility, not necessarily "ownership" at least in a monetary sense, although the reverse relationship to subsidiary (P355) seems more intended for corporations than government bodies. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree − I think this inverse constraint does not make sense anyway (for some imports I have not added the subsidiary (P355) claims because they would take way too much space on some items with lots of child organizations). − Pintoch (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
parent organization (P749) is the subproperty of (P1647) of owned by (P127) implying ownership in the financial sense as well, so I do not think it is a good candidate.--Tdombos (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


At Katrina Law (Q2054485), I removed the date of birth (P569) that was imported from the Polish Wikipedia project. I don't think Wikidata allowed me to add an edit summary, so I added a note on the Talk page. There are no reliable sources for Katrina Law's date of birth. The problem now is that any random editor can simply re-add either 1 January 1985 or 30 September 1985 without requiring a reliable source. (As happened here, based on the German Wikipedia project.) If you look through all Katrina Law Wikipedia articles, whichever birthday of these two you'll see depends on the article language you pick. First problem: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second problem: with Wikidata's current workflow - including the inability to add <!-- comments --> or anything like that - how could I possibly prevent the thousands of editors out there from re-adding any random birthdate? I don't want to stalk this Wikidata item until the end of time. -- 22:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that says her birthdate is unknown. With that, you can add a new birthdate "unknown value" and reference your reliable source, and leave the Wikipedia date but mark it as "deprecated". - PKM (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You can also add statement disputed by (P1310) to the bad birthdate with your reliable source. - PKM (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked into it a bit yesterday. IMDB and many other sites give her birthdate as September 30, 1985. However, I didn't find any really good source like an interview where she ties down her birth date. There's good circumstantial evidence that she is the same person as Joyce Houseknect and probably born in 1977 or 1978. It wouldn't be surprising if an agent or somebody put a later date into IMDB, given the issues actresses have with age discrimination. All I can suggest is omitting the date entirely, since there's no source necessarily reliable enough to deprecate the IMDB date. Ghouston (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Which property is the origin of automated language checks?

illustration where Indian English does not currently appear

I saw that catchphrase (P6251) just went active. For Chacha Chaudhary (Q3635511), perhaps the most famous comic book hero in India, I wanted to add "Chacha Chaudhary's brain works faster than a computer", which is what someone always says when this character resolves the story conflict. The language for this is Indian English (Q1348800).

That property requests a language. English and British English are options. I tried putting Wikimedia language code (P424) = en-in on Indian English (Q1348800), but that does not make it appear in the language list.

What needs to be in the Indian English item to make it show up on the language suggestion tool for catchphrase and similar? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: You will need to request the addition of this monolingual text language code on Phabricator. Mahir256 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Requested !
Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The phrase doesn't seem to use an Indian variant of English, I think the correct value is just "English". Ghouston (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
In any case, the variants only come into play when you have more than one way of writing a phrase. If there's only one, then use "English". Ghouston (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think catchphrase (P6251) has been designed to cover what someone says quite often. I am not sure whether this should include what other people often say about someone. It should be clearly stated. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Branch office, Филиал, Zweigniederlassung, filial, 事務所, Niederlassung, etc.

It's getting a bit confusing with Q232846, Q2268958, Q10546297, Q1410110. Could someone have a look to see if these can be consolidated better, or at the very least find better English labels? I'm looking for the correct item to use for 1) a retail shop part of a chain, like a specific McDonalds, Starbucks, and 2) a local branch/branch office of an international company, like Universal Music Australia. Moebeus (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • FWIW, 3 of the 4 have distinct articles in the German Wikipedia. But I don't think they are currently well-described in their English-language descriptions. - Jmabel (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I've read the German, English, Japanese, and Chinese articles in these items. overseas representative office (Q10546297) seems to be distinct from all the others (overseas representative office (Q10546297) focuses on being in a location it shouldn't normally operate in, e.g. diplomatic mission; representatives in a partner company). The other three are difficult - they're conceptual distinctions that are made in German (and ru, pl, uk each have 2 of those 3 concepts) but I can't think of any English or Chinese examples that make such distinction. Deryck Chan (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata list problem.

Is there a way, in column district, not to have Akrotiri and Dhekelia (Q37362). It is only in one cell, but it is better not to show. Xaris333 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to filter out a computed value within Listeria itself, so I think you'd need to edit your query to explicitly produce your own 'district' value, rather than using the simple column generator from Listeria. I think that should be relatively straightforward in this case (e.g. with even an explicit MINUS ?district wd:Q7362), but if you need any advice on how to create the query for that, I'm sure the lovely folks at Wikidata:Request a query would be very happy to help out. --Oravrattas (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

adlam pulaar

hi i would like to create a new language section of the fulah fulfulde language but whith ADLaM scrit. the latin and the ajami has not gotten anywhere and the ADLaM scrit is doing way better with millions now writting and reading in it, it is clearly the future for the fulfulde pulaar community. you can find people that can read and write adlam and not the ajami or latin. therefore to give wikipedia to the most remote people in the world a knowledge we need a section of this script just look at the fulfulde section of wikipedia its barely edited because those with high knowledge and culturally rich history can not write the latin but today they can wirte the adlam scrit to them its a pride as ADLAM can reflect every sound of the fulfulde easily but can not be the same for the latin or ajami scritp, therefore i need help on how to submit this request with the highest chance of getting approved, if i was to be asked the fulfulde section of wikipedia in latin should be deleted. people behind adlam are working 24/7 for its improvement now you have the script in windows and android apps even in google input tools, with inscriptions in hardvard and added in UNESCO as the official scritp. we have many contributors and can have up to 10 admins for starts and articles daily trasnlated in wich in a year we can have a thousonds of articles writtens,

This is Wikidata not Wikipedia. As such this isn't the place where you can request new Wikipedia editions to be created. is the page that lays out the process for that. ChristianKl❫ 13:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge request

Jaguar C-X17 (Q15139314) and Q50397910 appear to me to be duplicates. Can someone merge them please? DeFacto (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done After seeing the response to the following topic, I have now merged it myself. DeFacto (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

merge/redirect request

merge (or redirect) Q24033858 into Q14717382. Lazypub (talk)

  • Why aren't you merging it? See Help:Merge. --- Jura 12:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Because I couldn't find that link to show me how. Lazypub (talk)

How to create a property to serve as exception to a constraint?

Problem: taxon name (P225) says it can't have two items with the same value ( property constraint (P2302) distinct values constraint (Q21502410)), but in taxonomy, there are a LOT of homographs, either accidentally, or because plants and animals are allowed to "share" a latin name. As a result, that constraint has a lot, and I mean a whole freakin' lot of exceptions. To the point that it's hard to add new ones (it tends to freeze the page!).

Is there a way to create a property ("has homonym") that could be used as an automatic exception to distinct values constraint (Q21502410)? I believe the constraint is also not violated if the homonym (which is a name, not a taxon per se, as numerous names can apply to a taxon, but given delimitation of a taxon can only have one valid/correct name) is defined as not a taxon (cf. Solanum cardiophyllum Dunal (1852) (Q59424086)), but that throws up all sort of issues.

Really, the sensible thing would have been to treat names and taxon as separate things from the start, but that's easier said than done. Using "taxon name" for something that cannot be possibly called a taxon, such as a basionym required by basionym (P566) (it's literally the same taxon as the new combination based off it!) will always be semantically iffy. Circeus (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that we now have lexemes, the names can be moved there. ChristianKl❫ 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That is... literally the worst posisble reaction to this problem. For starters, every property calling for a taxon name of some sort would have to be recreated to call for a lexeme ON TOP of a separate item created for the scientific name of every single taxon on wikidata. And this would still do nothing to solve the actual problem I'm asking about. Circeus (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The core problem is that we have in Wikidata the standard that we have items about concepts and not about names of concepts. Entities that are instance of (P31) of taxon (Q16521) are about the taxon and not the name of the taxon. ChristianKl❫ 13:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)<
I consider the problem is mostly that the net of constraint currently makes it impossible to have de-facto names not associated with a taxon. Trying to duplicate databases like IPNI entirely within Wikidata is probably asking for too much (and splitting taxon and name context right now has become simply impractical, we're talking hundreds of thousands of entries here). Circeus (talk)
  • There is a separator property for the single value constraint. The same could be put in place for distinct value constraint. --- Jura 13:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura: I don,t work quite enough with constraint to decipher what you're trying to say. Could you dumb it down a little for me please? Or link to a clear example? Circeus (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Applications of basic processes

--Micru (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) TomT0m (talk) Genewiki123 (talk) Emw (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) —Ruud 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Emitraka (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Bovlb (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC) --Lechatpito (talk) --Andrawaag (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) --ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) --Cmungall Cmungall (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Cord Wiljes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC) DavRosen (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Fractaler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Andreasmperu Diana de la Iglesia Jsamwrites (talk) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) --Horcrux (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) Bamyers99 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Malore (talk) Wurstbruch (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Ettorerizza (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Ninokeys (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Buccalon (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Yair rand (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Tris T7 (talk) ElanHR (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC) linuxo Gq86 Gabrielaltay Liamjamesperritt (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC) ZI Jony Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Gaurav (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Meejies (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC) SilentSpike (talk) Tfrancart (talk) TiagoLubiana (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Clifflandis (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology

How can I show the relationship between an elementary process like "Q59852759: no description" and the application of this process in specific domains, for example:

I think we usually use <subclass of> for these relationships, but perhaps <instance of> is better? - PKM (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It depends on whether the various processes can (in principle) have instances themselves, and if so, they need to be subclasses. Is the use of substitution (Q28458126) in a particular algebraic proof an instance of substitution (Q28458126), for example? I'd say so. Ghouston (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Not so. Instances can themselves have instances. The question is instead Are my instances also your instances? If so, then the relationship is subclass. If not, then something else. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Instances can have instances? Can you explain more? I thought in Wikidata only classes could have instances. An item can be both an instance and a subclass, e.g., Samsung Galaxy S4 (Q5812783) is an instance of smartphone model (Q19723451) and a subclass of smartphone (Q22645) (I added the latter because it was missing). Ghouston (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Normally it's a subclass, but sometimes it might just be a question of identical names in one language. --- Jura 06:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There is for sure a common idea, but it’s not always easy or desirable to capture. My inclination would be to inspire from « parametric type » in computer science and maths and « abstract algebra. Substitution would then be an abstract operation over an algebraic structure, like « addition » over a ring. The relation would then be something that look like more an instanciation than a subclass - you would give an example of process type where a substitution could occur. But it’s not really easy to do an needs thinking to sort everything out, so is it worth the trouble, actually ? author  TomT0m / talk page 12:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Unless there's clear reasoning to think of it as instantiation, I would go with subclass of (P279) for almost all hierarchical relations among abstract concepts - if you can think of it as adding a "filter" to the basic concept (domain = X in this case), that's much more a subclass than an instance-type relationship. If it's really not at all clear I suppose you could go with facet of (P1269). I don't think we really need to define a new property for this though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about representing this. This alignment of word use over all five (or six) concepts is probably unique to English. Deryck Chan (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note they can be all linked together as senses of substitution (L14488). ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, all, for helping me think this through. I think I won’t worry about it for now (though the lexeme note is a good point - I really must dive into lexemes). - PKM (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think it would be desirable to link Q59852759 with the other items, if the other items involve acts of substitution. I think that's a concept, not just a language similarity. substitution (Q28458126) seems to be acts of Q59852759 applied to algebraic formulae. Ghouston (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

New Item from New User

Immanuel Union Church (Q60030971) Kindly review and criticize an item that might one day have an article in EN. I don't see that anything went wrong, but how would I know? Anyway I have every confidence the item needs more work of which I am unaware. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: Looks great, I think you edit like a pro 👍 I would separate out the organization (congregation?) from the building using occupant <=> headquarters location but that's about it. Very nice. Moebeus (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't all me or even mostly; Moebeus more than one old-timer jumped in with things I would never have suspected. So, that teaches me some. Yes, I ought to look up more about the church; I never heard of it until someone else snapped a picture only 20 km from my home. Much to learn about in WD; in a sense it's already bigger than EN though by other ways of counting, no. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: Well I for one hope you keep at it. It is my experience that it can be almost as fun as sports casting ;) Merry X-mas! Moebeus (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

GlobalFactSyncRE/DBpedia project proposal

DBpedia, which frequently crawls and analyses over 120 Wikipedia language editions, has near complete information about (1) which facts are in infoboxes across all Wikipedias, and (2) where Wikidata is already used in those infoboxes. GlobalFactSyncRE will extract all infobox facts and their references to produce a tool for Wikipedia editors that detects and displays differences across infobox facts in an intelligent way to help sync infoboxes between languages and/or Wikidata. The extracted references will also be used to enhance Wikidata. For more see meta:Grants talk:Project/DBpedia/GlobalFactSyncRE

Please let us know what you think, your opinion is important to us! Thank you!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 13:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC).

Editing your own item

Is there any agreement about that? There is nothing about self-editing on Wikidata:Living people, so I assume that it is ok, and even better if the statements are referenced. Any thoughts about this?--Micru (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Sure, if one adds references and it isn't fill with marginally relevant details. The problem is more if you create it yourself or if it was created by error .. --- Jura 12:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So if I understood well what you wrote, do you think that users should not create their own item, but they should be allowed to edit it if it is already there?--Micru (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has the Conflict Of Interest rule which prevents you from editing articles you are personally involved with, which includes your own article. Wikidata does not (yet). Lazypub (talk)
    • I guess on the encyclopedia it makes more sense to have a COI policy to avoid whitewashing and POV, however here on Wikidata that is not really a problem. If someone wants to add thousands of statements to their page, those are still factual.--Micru (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I originally thought you were asking if there was one (like a new editor wanting to create their own item). But it seems more like you are trying to start a discussion about if WD should have one, in which case - my opinion is: Structured Data is far different then the freeform writing of an encyclopedia. I am ok with editing own entries. The concern I have is notability, particularly when creating a self-item. I actually liked the line (recently removed) on the notability guideline if you don't already have an item, you probably aren't notable. Lazypub (talk)
        • @Lazypub: Your concern is already included in the wording of Wikidata:Autobiography: In general on Wikidata it is allowed to edit your own data item. However, you should not create an item about yourself unless you are sure that it fulfills the notability criteria. If you generally agree with the document, you can support this version here: Wikidata_talk:Autobiography#Final_version.--Micru (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
          • There is a difference between generally agreeing with a document, and agreeing it specific, badly edited version. There are a number of issues with the document as it currently stands, as discussed on its talk age, and that page's archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We have Wikidata:Autobiography in draft condition. It does not clearly state to my opinion what to do. However, if there was an item about me, I wouldn’t edit it directly per Wikidata:Use common sense in order to avoid potential drama. One can leave notes on the talk page, and maybe ping editors who have edited the item earlier. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @MisterSynergy: I was not aware of the existance of that page. I have made some modifications according to what we are discussing here. Please do bring up any concerns about it so that we can discuss them. I think it is a good entry point and perhaps it should be adopted as a policy. Do we need an RFC for that?--Micru (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I was not particularly involved when this page was created, but I can remember that there was quite some trouble related to it—see its talk page, and there are probably some Project chat discussions somewhere as well. Policy making is not my specialty, thus I am not sure what is required to make this an official policy. Likely an RfC, yes … —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
        • It might be easier to write something new from scratch. Due to its wording (IMO), this had lingered on requests for deletions for ages. --- Jura 16:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of items on borderline of notability, where the only editors seems to be the subject and people correcting constraint violations. Those items are often without any sources, or the only source is a website controlled by the subject, or auto-biographical profiles on other websites like MusicBrains, ResearchGate, etc. I would be in favor of having policies against such edits. I am fine with linking items created by others with external identifiers (not created by the subject) or adding an image, but any other edit should be verifiable, through independent sources. --Jarekt (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sources are nice to have, however if the person who is the subject of the item edits it from a verified account, isn't that the same? Or do we always need a 3rd party? What if there is no published info on that topic?--Micru (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think a lot of personal information is ultimately supplied by the relevant person in any case. Do we really gain anything by having a 3rd party such as a journalist (web site writer) simply repeating what the person tells them? You may as well take the data from their personal website and cut out the intermediary, unless there is conflicting data elsewhere. Ghouston (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
      • In theory, a reputable source should use a fact-checker and not simply regurgitate "facts" the person presents about themselves. --Oravrattas (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what fact-checker could be used. It may be hard to get information about people from 3rd party sources (like governments, employers) due to privacy considerations. Also, journalism is not what it used to be, there are a lot fewer people employed. I suspect in most cases, they'll either accept what the person supplies or copy it off their personal / organisational website or social media accounts. Ghouston (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe a list of properties and how to reference them on items about oneself could help. For some a self published CV should do, for awards, notable works, etc. probably not. --- Jura 13:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Normally awards are listed on the award page, or there is some mention on the media, so they should be easy to reference or check.--Micru (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
        • How is this relevant? --- Jura 13:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
          • It means people won't generally lie about receiving awards, at least in print or video, because they'd be so easily caught out. I understand that many people will bend the truth or omit information to make themselves look better. However, in general I think if a noteable person or organisation says something about themselves it should just be accepted, with a reference, preferably archived, until bad faith is demonstrated or at least suspected. There seems to be a lot of paranoia about organizations giving false information, but in general this would be fraud and I'd expect them to avoid it. Ghouston (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Why aren't these sort of questions settled by a straightforward RfC to create unambiguous policy? All you need to do is to present two questions, have the discussions and analyse the results:

  1. Are editors allowed to create their own biography?
    Answer either "Yes, but they must unarguably meet Wikidata:Notability" or "No".
  2. Are editors allowed to edit their own pre-existing biography?
    Answer either "Yes, but they must be able to provide sources if challenged" or "No, they can suggest edits on the discusion page".

Or something similar. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Because that is not how consensus works. This is not about a "yes" or "no" question, it is about listening to all the arguments, addressing fears, and then coming up with the right wording. As of now, it seems that there is a consensus that no matter who creates the item "it must unarguably meet Wikidata:Notability" (which of course can be contested) and that "everyone is welcome to add reliable, and verifiable data into Wikidata, even if it is about themselves" (which can for sure be verified). This is not like Wikipedia where you can whitewash information, and that is why so far nobody has ever complained about anybody editing their own items.--Micru (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: On the contrary, that is exactly how consensus works. It is a pair of simple yes/no questions that we want the answer to. Of course it's about listening to the arguments, and distilling the RfC into wording that can guide policy.
The problem I'm trying to address is the completely unstructured rambling that takes place here, which has little chance of reaching any clear conclusions. We need the structure that an RfC provides: that is how online communities have always developed the frameworks and standards that underpin their work.
Why are you going off on a tangent about notability? We already have the policy and don't need to re-debate it in order to answer the two questions about whether an editor can create their own biography and whether they can edit their own pre-existing biography. What's your source for "everyone is welcome to add reliable, and verifiable data into Wikidata, even if it is about themselves"? I just did an insource search and the only place it shows up is in your post. You can't just make up policy to suit your argument and create more prevarication. No wonder that after six years, Wikidata still doesn't have clear policies on so many crucial issues. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: I think your interpretation of consensus is misguided, for instance read what enwiki says about consensus. There are conclusions to these conversations, which can be integrated into existing policy. And if someone complains about the changes, then we can see what we can do better.
The source of my statement is on the front page of Wikidata: "the free knowledge base that anyone can edit". It doesn't say that "only people who are not listed here can edit it", and nowhere says that if you have an item you cannot edit it yourself, so in the light of the circumstances I consider that my statement is factual and represents the current status quo. The question is, do you disagree with those statements? And if so, why?--Micru (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: And I think your interpretation of consensus is flawed. I suggest you read en:Wikipedia:Consensus #By soliciting outside opinions , section "Requests for comment", and try to understand how RfCs work: "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, ..." These unstructured conversations are incapable of reaching conclusions, nor of establishing consensus. An RfC poses simple questions, which are then debated, and an impartial closer writes a conclusion. That's how you make policy, not "write your version of policy and see if anybody objects".
The front page of Wikidata does not give licence to editors to create their own biographies, or to edit them. You might as well claim that it allows anyone to write nonsense because "anyone can edit". By your reasoning, nowhere does it say that you cannot vandalise, so that would be just as acceptable, wouldn't it? It should be obvious that there is no consensus or policy already established on the questions about biography editing, or the thread wouldn't have generated so many comments and differing opinions. So yes, I dismiss your assertions as mere opinions, and I repeat the question, why isn't this being decided by a binding RfC? --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: If you check Wikidata's policies, you will see that there have been changes without the need of an RfC. So that is basically how it has worked so far, someone has a problem, wants to make a change, and if nobody objects to the change, then they do it.
By your reasoning, nowhere does it say that you cannot vandalise That is not true, here it says that "vandalism is strictly forbidden".
The reason why this is not being decided by an RfC is because so far nobody considered it necessary (or wanted to do the effort). If you consider it necessary, then go ahead an open an RfC, structure it, and invite everyone to participate.--Micru (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a problem with people who are marginally notable, it may be hard to find sources to tie together pieces of information and show they belong to the same person. Imagine that Bill Smith wrote a fairly obscure novel. Also, Bill Smith is a representative in the Montana legislature. In reality, Bill Smith is also a Wikidata editor, and knows the author, the representative, and the Wikidata editor are all the same person, but there is no independent reliable source that says so. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There are at least some cases where a person editing an autobiographical item is helpful: e.g. someone's religious affiliation has a high bar for a clear an explicit public declaration, which that would be. Editing items about yourself certainly can be a problem but something like a public declaration on the talk page and higher scrutiny of edits would resolve this. I'm really loathe to preemptively disallow anyone from editing anything that isn't an inherently high-risk item like the main page or the site interface. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem when statements are added without a source. Maybe the editor claims to be that person and hence know all about them. But then, somebody can come along and say "Hi, I'm Brad Pitt (Q35332). I'm just here to fix some mistakes with my religion, sexual orientation and ethnic origin". Ghouston (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, sometimes. Other times, it's pretty clear. Someone coming along and saying, "Yeah, this is Brad Pitt, I just use the username ReallyBradPit69 on Wikidata, I promise" would be held to the same scrutiny as an IP. But we have many known entities who are editors here and have accounts as well as items.Justin (koavf)TCM 22:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

uniqueness constraint and historization

Hi, I stumbled across Tanger-Tétouan-Al Hoceïma (Q19951300) and Tangier-Tetouan (Q389777) where the property ISO 3166-2 code (P300) is marked as not-unique (violating the uniqueness constraint). But, both property values are historized with start time (P580) resp. end time (P582) and do have non-overlapping time-spans. In fact the same ISO code was reused for different administrative structure. Thus in the course of time, there never was a uniqueness constraint violation. In general, can we either modify the uniqueness constraint to only needs to be unique at any point in time (but not over time) or can we have two different uniqueness constraints, one as it is now and the second weaker needing uniqueness only at any point in time? Or is there any other proposal to solve this problem? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert but could P2303 ("exception to constraint") be used on the property constraint? Not a very dynamic or elegant solution, but if the exceptions are relatively few it could perhaps work out. Moebeus (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • You could switch the constraint to a "single preferred value" constraint and add a preferred statement with novalue to the item that no longer uses a code. --- Jura 11:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Herzi Pinki: I think separator (P4155) should work here? Cf. the help page. --Marsupium (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC), 13:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    • It should get rid of the violation, but I don't think it checks that the date ranges never overlap, only that the dates are different. - Nikki (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No-value in preferred rank works [5], at least for the gadget, as that probably queries only best values. --- Jura 13:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of a constraint for unique at any given point in time. - Nikki (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Living people

Hi, after reading the living people policy I'm not sure how to proceed on Q2709, can I simply remove a "mass" 50kg without reference and without point in time for living people? I'd also like to get rid of a suspicious URL on this page, because there are already enough relevant authority control IDs on the page. – 12:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The policy is worded to allow you to remove a statement like that mass statement when you think it shouldn't be there. On the other hand it doesn't say, that you should remove the mass statement.
I agree that the link doesn't belong there and removed it. ChristianKl❫ 13:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, also see Weight in BLP (on Teahouse) for similar issues on enwiki. I can't tell at the moment what c:Sasha Grey actually does, it's some mixture of wikidata and enwiki data. – 17:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Project grant request

Dear all

I've submitted a grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation to continue to work at UNESCO in 2019 and would really appreciate it if you would consider endorsing it (the blue button at the bottom of the infobox). In 2019 we want to focus on:

1. Continue to write and improve instructions on Wikimedia projects (especially Wikidata) to make it easier for everyone to run projects 2. Helping UN agencies adopt open licensing and share content on Wikimedia projects 3. Share UNESCO content at large scale (100,000s of images) 4. Build the relationships between UN agencies and Wikimedia organisations to run projects

For Wikidata we want to import data from UN agencies, create many missing Wikidata tours, work on recording schemas for different subjects and generally improve the quality of instructions on Wikidata. Previously we've worked a lot on Wikidata documentation to help import data and help organisations understand the value of Wikidata, including:

This will be the last time we ask the Wikimedia Foundation for funding, we have a grant proposal outlined for a large external grant for 2020 but without this year's funding we won’t get to where we need to be.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Why isn't this paid by UNESCO directly? --- Jura 13:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Jura, this is covered in the budget narrative here. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits in Q24352468

I made some edits in item Q24352468 in order to adjust this item in accordance with article in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Массовое убийство в Егорьевске (2016)) where this article is about crime (massacre), but not about killer (Ilya Aseev). But user User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 reverted all my edits. I can't write directly to this user, because his discussion page is semi-protected. Please help.-- 12:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done.Thank you for clarifying --David (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages

Does Wikidata have any sort of policy regarding participation in discussions, especially on users' own talk pages? I've run into a couple of editors who never respond on their own talk pages, and some others who wouldn't respond (or didn't know how to) until they were indefinitely blocked. See also Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Harvest Templates. Jc86035 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Many editors are only active in the projects and might not even know that Wikidata exists.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, since the issue has been resolved in the linked discussion. Jc86035 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jc86035 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Simple edit will not save (re translate?)

I've been trying to update the main wikitable in Wikidata:WikiProject_Physics#Infobox_Isotope. It appears to me that even with minor, textual edits, before saving the page becomes corrupted and/or does not accept saving. Might have to do with "translate" elements in there.

More details/reproduce: I make a simple textual edit in the table. Then in a Preview check, the table header is corrupted (shows columncode !! literally, no column separators any more then). I have commented out or removed some parts [6], issue looked resolved. Still in Changes check, I see a newline was added after <translate>. Also, a minor textual change does not "Publish " (Save): page returns in Edit mode. I had to abandon my editing the page. Any clarification? -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect statement for Q2280

Minsk Minsk (Q2280) is not part of Minsk Region Minsk Region (Q192959) but has the "part of" statement defined. I'm a newby in this project. Please advise how to fix this. Should this statement be just deleted?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaugenka (talk • contribs).

  • It looks like you added an "end time" to that, which is presumably the right thing to do, assuming that is accurate. A reference would be good. - Jmabel (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

How does this work

I love Wikipedia but I have no idea how to do this and the help pages don’t tell me a thing ( other than what I already know from Wikipedia experience) Sun Sunris (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. What questions do you have? --Denny (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Wikidata serve two entirely different purposes. Experience with one does not apply to the other. WD is what is called 'structured' data, which is far different than the free-form writing on WP. Lazypub (talk)
If you could indicate what you are trying to do, it is a lot more likely someone can aim you the right place. - Jmabel (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean... this thing feels like it has no purpose. It of course does, but IDK if I’ll find any opportunities to edit and pages are just lots of pictures and files. Sun Sunris (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • At its most basic - Take into consideration that Wikipedia has a bunch of different languages. On English Wikipedia, in order to tell John Smith apart from other John Smith's, we use disambiguation like 'John Smith (explorer)'. But how do we know that John Smith on English Wikipedia is the same John Smith on Spanish Wikipedia? Wikidata collects the information about the same John Smith and puts them on to one page. By clicking Q228024 you see that the same guy has numerous articles in numerous languages, not all of them say (explorer). Basically, Wikidata is an index of Wikipedia and the sister sites (Wikicommons, Wikiquote, etc).
Getting a little more advanced, you can also see on John Smith that we have information entered. No superfluous writing. Just information of the basic level. Name. Date of Birth. Very simple data that is used for identifying who John Smith is.
And then the "bonus" material - Still no freeform writing. But yes, we do link to employers and social media. It is all in effort to identify the person.
I like to think of it as - if you are from the USA, Wikidata is like your Social Security Number. It is the way of separating you from everyone else. A personal identifier. There can be many people named John Smith. There can be many named John Smith born in 2018 in Los Angeles that grew up to be actors. But there can be only one 123-45-6789. Lazypub (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
What? No, this is inaccurate. Data added to person items are not all for identifying the person. We include all sorts of data on hundreds of attributes, in order to compile a general structured knowledge base. These statements are not there just to make an index for Wikimedia projects. --Yair rand (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't say it is inaccurate. Say that there is more to it. Because, at its most basic, it is an index of the other Wiki projects. But, yes, it is so much more. Lazypub (talk)
Providing an index for Wikimedia projects is not Wikidata's primary purpose. --Yair rand (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I think I get that for the most part. Sun Sunris (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sun Sunris: For a short introduction, I recommend watching this lightning talk by Asaf. It's only 7:37 min long and explains briefly what is Wikidata and what can you do with it. There is a longer 3h talk if you want to get into the details.--Micru (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


A city has different population; an administrative, an agglomerative and a metropolitan (Or it at least belongs to a metropolitan area). How can i present those values? -- 12:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I think in most cases the best way is to have multiple items for the different concepts. Paris (Q90) for example has Metropolis of Greater Paris (Q16665915). ChristianKl❫ 14:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
+1, several items is better especially for France, where there is a lot of areas for a city, for example for: Paris (Q90) where there is also Paris aire urbaine (Q1081225) or Paris unité urbaine (Q1082222)). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

URL change

Hello. Do anyone want to change links from to 700 broken links are found:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item ?prop ?stmt .
  ?stmt prov:wasDerivedFrom ?refnode .
  ?refnode pr:P854 <>
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" . }

Try it!  — Vort (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. — Vort (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation from Wiki Loves Love 2019

Please help translate to your language

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Love is an important subject for humanity and it is expressed in different cultures and regions in different ways across the world through different gestures, ceremonies, festivals and to document expression of this rich and beautiful emotion, we need your help so we can share and spread the depth of cultures that each region has, the best of how people of that region, celebrate love.

Wiki Loves Love (WLL) is an international photography competition of Wikimedia Commons with the subject love testimonials happening in the month of February.

The primary goal of the competition is to document love testimonials through human cultural diversity such as monuments, ceremonies, snapshot of tender gesture, and miscellaneous objects used as symbol of love; to illustrate articles in the worldwide free encyclopedia Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects.

The theme of 2019 iteration is Celebrations, Festivals, Ceremonies and rituals of love.

Sign up your affiliate or individually at Participants page.

To know more about the contest, check out our Commons Page and FAQs

There are several prizes to grab. Hope to see you spreading love this February with Wiki Loves Love!

Kind regards,

Wiki Loves Love Team

Imagine... the sum of all love!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #344

Best practices for multiple VIAF IDs?

I've noticed that some people have multiple Virtual International Authority File identifiers, e.g. Charles Winnecke (data) has VIAF ID 41762344 and 269870528. One of these ID's is already associated with Wikidata, yet it is the ID with the fewest nodes. In cases like this, should both VIAF ID's be added? Can one or another be prioritized? Thanks. Animalparty (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If they are really the same person, then VIAF should be notified to merge their records. But on the Wikidata side, yes, you can add both, and if one is preferred for some reason there is a rank selector (just to the left of the edit box when you are editing) that you can use to mark the preferred one. If VIAF does merge them, then the ID they delete should be given deprecated rank. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup. I've done this myself at least once (though I didn't realize about the rank thing). Circeus (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please add both with normal rank. --- Jura 16:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for VIAF, but I have contacted ISNI many times. In fact, I have used the built in notifier so many times that they gave me an email address to use. They say it lets them get to it faster, but I don't think it does. I think it is just a "we can trust this guy" type of thing, sort of like having 100k edits on Wikipedia - it does make one's edit seem "trustworthy". These organizations are very good about correcting information, but it does require sources and explanations. Their entire premise is identification. If their identification is wrong, they lose all credibility. Lazypub (talk)
    • VIAF uses Wikidata directly and generally merges identifiers used on the same item. They do that without being notified. In general, best practice at Wikidata shouldn't include a step consisting of maintenance of any external database. --- Jura 11:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Other sites" links with Wikidata list

Hello. How can I have a column with Commons categories? No the Commons category (P373). The link in "Other sites". Xaris333 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xaris333: if you mean Listeria / {{Wikidata list}}, then you can select a sitelink in the query and use that – see the source code of Special:PermanentLink/821800203 for an example. --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@TweetsFactsAndQueries: I want to have another column with the sitelink. User:Xaris333/Test Xaris333 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333: I’ve added the column there, is it more or less what you want? --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@TweetsFactsAndQueries: It's exactly what I want. Thank you very much! Xaris333 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing labels after local page moves

I notice that MatSuBot adds missing labels when a page is added to an item, but it seems that neither Wikidata itself nor any bot will rename a label if a local page is moved. I think both of these should be resolved by the current mechanisms somehow, if not by a bot. (I don't know how wiki works. Ignore me if I say something silly.) When we add a page thru the sidebar, when it's triggered by content translation tool, or when we move a page on local wikis, the mechanism changes the link on wikidata automatically. Then why not change the label as well?--Roy17 (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Labels do not need to match article titles. See Help:Label. While a page move might sometimes indicate that the label should similarly be changed, often it does not, so we probably shouldn't have it done automatically. --Yair rand (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You are right. I failed to consider the large set of labels that do not match the subject names because of disambiguation etc.--Roy17 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
+1 with Yair rand but that said a tool or even just a page to list the renaming on Wikimedia project could be useful. Not all renaming should be followed by a change of label (obvious case: when a disambiguation is added in parentheses) but some are and we don't track that right now (which is a shame). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Does someone want to file a phabricator ticket? Maybe it can be picked up at a hackathon or similar. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we connect pseudoazimuthal projection (Q60220542) to azimuthal projection (Q11504341) in Wikidata?

pseudoazimuthal projection (Q60220542)s were derived from azimuthal projection (Q11504341)s. Is there a good property for in this case? --Sharouser (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sharouser: based on (P144) might be appropriate, but I'm not sure. The property constraint would have to be changed to make this valid. Jc86035 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Are all instances azimuthal projection (Q11504341) instances of pseudoazimuthal projection (Q60220542)? If so azimuthal projection (Q11504341) would be a subclass. It would be necessary to look at the actual mathmematical definition to see whether that's true. ChristianKl❫ 09:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive url, archive date and retrieved date for reference

Help:Sources: options: stated in (P248) (referring to publications and media). Where archive URL (P1065) archive date (P2960) and retrieved (P813) must be added? To the item's statement or to the source item?

If I put them to the source item, someone may change them later with new values. For example, may something change and archive the url again and add the new archive url and date. But that was not the edition that I used for source. Xaris333 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

These are bibliographic properties for use in the source "subproperty" (There are various properties of this nature that allow you to give full bibliographical information when your source does not have a matching item). Circeus (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What kind of source are?

Help:Sources: "Typically the property used for sources is one of two options: stated in (P248) (referring to publications and media) and reference URL (P854) (used for websites and online databases)"

Below there are some sources I frequently using for reference. Please tell me if are "publications and media" or "websites and online databases". It is important for me to know, to use the correct option of property for sources.

  1. [7] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P4812.
  2. [8] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P2046.
  3. [9] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P2044.
  4. [10] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (2011).
  5. [11] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (2001).
  6. [12] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1992).
  7. [13] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1982).
  8. [14] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1976).
  9. [15] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1960).
  10. [16] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1946).
  11. [17] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1931).
  12. [18] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1921).
  13. [19] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1911).
  14. [20] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1901).
  15. [21] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1891).
  16. [22] You can see it as a reference at Q3561641#P1082 (1881).

Xaris333 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

if a database or online reference has its own a Wikidata item, I use “stated in” and qualify it with the ID if it has its own property or with a “reference URL” linking to the specific entry that contains the reference. - PKM (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
1) Can you give an example? 2) My question was what we should do, not what everyone is doing in individual level. That is a problem in Wikidata. Many things are not clear. Sometimes we understand with a different way many things. Xaris333 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The properties you refer to are the main property for sources that have an item themselves. The examples you point at are not in that situation, and so use the appropriate properties to give full bibliographical detail. It's worth noting that even if a source has an item (this especially so for books, but also articles that may happen to not have a matching item), adding additional bibliographical information is still appropriate, compare the various sources in Solanum angustifidum (Q15533108), for example (and please ignore the use of publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326), which is something specific to Latin names of organisms, in most cases either stated in (P248) or reference URL (P854) with optional extra bibliographic properties will be good enough for what you need). Circeus (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326) is not intended to be used within references. Please use the article item (here XL. Solana diversa (Q55752896)) if one exist. --Succu (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my point. [sarcasm mode] That's always appreciated. Circeus (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Circeus: But we can create every item we want, like Classification for the degree of urbanisation in Cyprus (Q60197762) (for the second url). Xaris333 (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course you can! What I explain applies when the item doesn't exists (or the reference adder can't find it for whatever reason). Circeus (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Model item (Property:P5869)

Just wondering, which type of entities should this property be on?

It was originally proposed for items (see samples on Wikidata:Property_proposal/Model_item), but can now also be found on a property (Property:P747#P5869).

On properties, to some extent it duplicates:

Supposedly, the still proposed inverse property for model item (P5869) couldn't work when using it on properties (Wikidata:Property proposal/Model item for).

Also, if selection is mainly done by the number of statements on an item, the query links on the property talk page are better than a static link to one item. --- Jura 14:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: I suggest we discuss this on the property talk page for better archiving, see Property_talk:P5869#Allowed_entity_types. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Quote: Two questions
  1. I don't understand why you say that the proposed invese property would not be usable on properties, can you explain further?
  2. when you say if selection is mainly done by the number of statements on an item, the query links on the property talk page are better than a static link to one item Im not sure I understand, could you use an example?

John Cummings: I'd rather comment here. To answer your questions: (1) try to use a sandbox property to do what you plan in Wikidata:Property proposal/Model item for and you will notice. (2) choose a random property, look at its talk page and then click on the query links. --- Jura 12:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: Just wanted to add my thoughts here as well. So the main objections to using this on properties as I understand it are:
  1. Similarity to Wikidata property example (P1855) - I can see there is a lot of overlap here, but I feel like the Wikidata Property Example should focus on demonstrating the syntax to use, whereas the Model Item can show very notable/showcase items using the property (i.e. very complete, and well referenced). Does that make sense to you?
  2. The Proposed Inverse property would not work for properties as you would only be able to use items as values (not properties) - I can see the problem here, it would mean that we would need the instructions for the inverse property to explain that it can only be used for items. Obviously only an issue if the property actually gets accepted though.
  3. The query links on property talk pages can already show you items using the property which have the most statements (i.e. the same as our initial selection criteria for model items to add to properties) - The main point to make here is that we're using statement count for suggesting model items, but expect humans to override this when they have specific subject knowledge. Ultimately it should be a curated list for each property.
Overall I still feel like it's still a useful addition despite the few downsides. I just see it as another really useful way to investigate data quality, and see out good examples to follow when adding other data. NavinoEvans (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@NavinoEvans: Currently, the items that are used with this property are frequently violating our standards. This sets a bad example as it makes it likely that people think they would be good examples when they aren't. The items seem to be picked by the criteria of how much statements a given item has (quantity over quality). ChristianKl❫ 14:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you have a few samples that illustrate where you think it's useful? --- Jura 11:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @NavinoEvans: and @Jura1:, just to flag that it seems likely that inverse properties may become something that are automatically added in 2019, it was the most requested new feature for Wikidata in the 2019 Community Wishlist. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it applies to this, but we already can't find samples for the proposed re-scoping, so we might as well forget it. --- Jura 13:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this property is most useful for things that are too granular for Help pages (specific types of heritage sites, specific occupations, etc.). Here’s an example I created for model of “costume historian”, Anne Buck (Q59452296), which suggests one should add the related “field of work” and look for “affiliations” in addition to employers and places of education. Something like this for “place listed on the National Register of Historic Places” would have saved me a lot of work teasing out best practices a couple of months ago. - PKM (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

.NET library to access Wikidata

I am looking for a .NET library to access Wikidata. I have tried all the options under, Create a bot and Tools for programmers, but none have worked so far. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You can try with my BOT in Github. Can work on Wikipedia and Wikidata (live and dump) --ValterVB (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
There's, but that hasn't been worked on for 3 years when the original author planned a complete rewrite. My fork at least still works [23], but has its problems as well. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Ahoerstemeier:. I was able to get the Valter’s bot library working. Ganeshk (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)