Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/09

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Broken constraint on subclass of (P279)

I can't figure out what the value requires statement constraint (Q21510864) constraint is trying to achieve here, but it's broken due to multiple property (P2306) values. As a pretty widespread property it would be good to get it fixed. --SilentSpike (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --SilentSpike (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


They are the same article published in two editions of a journal. I don't know whether they should be merged, or there should be an property to link these two items. --GZWDer (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the logic of @Daniel Mietchen:'s bot, I think they probably should remain separate. The items are per published article, not per work. In merged form, the page numbers and volume indications become meaningless. Still, in one way or the other, these need to be linked. --- Jura 07:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing a statement in multiple articles

Sometimes several items have the same statement with the same incorrect item linked. For example on items with heritage designation (P1435):Grade II listed building (Q15700834), any with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131): Ashdon (Q26001112) should be Ashdon (Q1832065) (62 items) and any with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131):Luton (Q11797266) should be Luton (Q21683239) (78 items). QuickStatements can be used to add statements but is there a tool that can be used to change them? Peter James (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Peter James: The very crude way to do it is PetScan - you can feed it a SPARQL query then say "remove all claims P1:Q1234, add claims P1:Q5678, for all items". However, this will lose any sources, qualifiers, etc. If there aren't any of those, then great!
You can also use QuickStatements to do exactly the same thing (remove one claim, add another). Again, you'll lose sources/qualifiers, but you can also add them back in using QS.
Finally, a very sophisticated approach is to use something like wikidata-cli - this will let you target specific statements & claims, so you can keep qualifiers intact while switching the main values. It's fiddlier to work with but substantially more powerful. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
In case *all* items should be moved, you can ask at WD:RBOT for someone to create a script to move those items for you. A smart script can move sources and qualifiers too. Edoderoo (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

for undo need time estimate

For the option to undo a group of edits, please post a time estimate. In mid-to-late July, I saw that the original edits by someone else had taken 1-2 minutes for one group of 34 edits and my undo was not selective, so it should have been relatively simple and I assumed it would take a couple of minutes. Twenty minutes later, only 8 edits had been done. Over an hour after starting, only 8 edits are done. Eighty-five minutes after starting and after opening a new browser (Arora), it's still only 8. This leaves me with a dilemma: when my session time is about to run out and I have to log off, I don't know whether to stop undoing or let it keep undoing while I'm not logged in, if it will even permit that. (A discussion with the other editor suggested that all my 34 edits were completed, although I don't know when.) If the process would have run more than a minute, some rough time estimate before I started would have been helpful. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  • From my vague memory, I think it runs without the browser window being open and can be started a second time. --- Jura 10:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Item update request

On singer-songwriter (Q488205) please add “piosenkarka” (Polish) on female form and “cantautore” (Italian) on male form. Thanks!!! -- 14:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Done for the Polish. But "Male form" property don't exist, and it is already the Italian label of the item. Cheers, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
male form of label (P3321) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know! Sorry. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

item fix request

writer (Q36180) have 2 form for italian female form: “scrittice” and “scrittrice”. Please delete “scrittice” (without R) and leave “scrittrice” (with R). Thanks! -- 16:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Federation - your input is needed

Hi everyone :)

We do want to allow more and more people to run their own Wikibase instance. As part of that we want to allow people to deeply connect these Wikibase instances among each other and especially with Wikidata. We also want to allow them to benefit from work done in other Wikibase instances and especially Wikidata, like the definition and refining of properties. As people talk and think about this it is often referred to as Federation. However there is the problem that we don't talk about the same thing when we say Federation but instead about a multitude of related features. In order to move the development forward we need to sort out what people actually want and need to make sure we're actually developing something useful. I opened a page for collecting your input at Wikidata:Federation input.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Language barriers - your input is needed

Hi everyone :)

In Wikidata people from many different backgrounds work together. As Wikidata grows we can't rely on everyone speaking English anymore. With the development of Wikidata Bridge (the ability to edit Wikidata directly from the other sister projects) we will see another surge in contributions from people who potentially will have to discuss with each other about the content we have without speaking a shared language well enough for that. It was also one of the major topics identified in the session about obstacles to more Wikidata adoption in Wikipedia at Wikimania 2019.

This is not an easily solvable topic but one we need to think about and your input would be very helpful. I opened a page for it at Wikidata:Language barriers input.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Qualifying features/qualities

Given the feature lightfastness (Q909369), how do we indicate that a substance has "poor" lightfastness or "excellent" lightfastness as stated in our sources? I can't seem to find items for "good", "poor", "fair", etc,. as measures of quality. Perhaps I am missing something? And what qualifier property would we use? - PKM (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"Subject has role" as statement

subject has role (P2868) says it should be used as a qualifier, but when it is used as a statement (as in carmine (Q320617)) there is no constraint violation. I believe "subject has role" used as a statement would be better as use (P366). What do you think? And should there be a constraint? - PKM (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There should absolutely be a constraint: the property is mean solely to qualify the target of a statement, so it makes semantically no sense at all for it to be a main statement! Therefore I have replaced the baffling "conflict-with instance of (P31) film (Q11424)" that was there with the appropriate scope constraint. Circeus (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: thank you. Now to find someone who can make a bot to change all the "Subject has role" statements to use (P366) statements, preserving values and references. - PKM (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, a bot is a bad idea now that I think about it; some may be acting roles rather than uses. - PKM (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
There are 3751 uses right now, apparently mostly in the field of biochemistry. It was proposed with the biochemical/biomedical field in mind, so maybe someone from a related project could say more about the use of subject has role (P2868) and if it may be replaced with use (P366).

Andrew Su
Marc Robinson-Rechavi
Pierre Lindenbaum
Michael Kuhn
Dan Bolser
Timo Willemsen
Salvatore Loguercio
Daniel Mietchen
Ben Moore
Alex Bateman
Vojtěch Dostál
Andra Waagmeester
Elvira Mitraka
David Bikard
Dan Lawson
Francesco Sirocco
Konrad U. Förstner (talk)
Chris Mungall (talk)
Kristina Hettne
Karima Rafes
Finn Årup Nielsen
Jasper Koehorst
Till Sauerwein
Amos Bairoch
Was a bee
Muhammad Elhossary
Damian Szklarczyk
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Molecular biology Saehrimnir
Jasper Deng
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Antony Williams (EPA)
Devon Fyson
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry Tobias1984
Doc James
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Projekt ANA
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Chris Mungall
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Sami Mlouhi
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
Shani Evenstein
ZI Jony
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There are also quite a few position or occupation statements using subject has role (P2868) that should be moved to position held (P39) or occupation (P106). subject has role (P2868) is also used to indicate the role of a game character in terms of game mechanics (player character, etc.), but this may be expressed as a qualifier to characters (P674). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The chemical items that have "subject has role" mainly have it because of the ChEBI import---their ontology use it to indicate type of usage of that compound by humans. For example drugs have some medical use, or pesticides have some agricultural use. As there is no other species than humans using chemical compounds, the "use" property fits perfectly too IMHO. --SCIdude (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

object has role (P3831) seems likely

Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P3831 tells me that there are 4 items that use P3831 as main statement. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@, Alotrootropico, Moebeus, Shsucoll:^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I fixed those four violations, three were mistakes, one vandalism. Moebeus (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"File usage on other wikis" for Wikidata items?

Is there a way to find "File usage on other wikis" for Wikidata items?

If there is an article devoted to a specific Wikidata item, that will appear. Also, "What links here" will identify other Wikidata items that reference a particular wikidata item.

Items in commons.wikimedia include "File usage on other wikis". I'd like to see that in Wikidata.

Example: Earlier today I edited the Wikipedia article on w:Kenneth Snelson to include a link to Triple Crown sculpture (Q66839784). I don't know how to find that from Wikidata.

More generally, it would be nice to be able to identify all the Wikimedia Foundation project links to a particular Wikidata item. If there aren't many, a user might want to check them all to see, e.g., if a related reference might be useful in some of those other articles.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

--- Jura 04:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much.
May I ask what are the "Statement: P123, ... Title, Label: en" in *
Anyway, I'm glad to know how to get that information. I think it would be easier to find if it were the same as Wikimedia Commons, but at least it can be found.
DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
These are specific pieces of data which are used on a page. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Please give a reason" spam from IPv6s

e.g. [1] should we set up an AbuseFilter to hold up so? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #380

Wikidata read-only period on September 10 at roughly 05:00 AM UTC

Due to on-site maintenance for some of our database servers, there will be a read-only period for Wikidata on September 10. You can read more in phab:T226778 and phab:T230788. This means that the wiki can be read but not edited. The read-only window is 05:00AM UTC to 05:30 AM UTC, but if everything goes well the actual period of no editing will be shorter. When editing on Wikidata, it will be apparent that the changes are not working. If you've got any questions, the Phabricator tickets are probably the best place to ask. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Fake timestamp to not have it archived before the maintenance: 05:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is September first and I notice regularly moment of read-only statuses. It follows that edits are lost and consequently data integrity is compromised. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Qualifiers for P571

Is there any discussion or project to talk [deeply] about ontology for inception (P571) ?. Its talk page is not enough.

In 90% of cases P571 is just a single value property, in some cases together with sourcing circumstances (P1480) or collection or exhibition size (P1436) or earliest date (P1319) or refine date (P4241), all of them related with precision of value itself. These are not problematic and are well-defined in Help:Dates.

However, in cases like organizations, countries, municipalities, etc. that may have several "creation dates" about for changes, merging or splitting, it is not clear how to record nor which qualifiers are the most representatives to use. The present collection is large. Beside the above mentioned (the most used), if we look for the real use, there are several qualifiers that may be use alternatively (P3831, P2868, P4649, P793,..). Others are really strange: P580, P582,...(?). The P571 is a "point in time", not an event with start-end date. In some cases related with territorial items (specially state (Q7275)) the different values of P571 are showing the changes of the basic form of government (P122) instead of changes in territory or jurisdiction. Two examples: Afghanistan (Q889) or Spain (Q29). In opposition, Germany (Q183) has no P571; all its recent changes track are in replaces (P1365). Anyway, if somebody has any information about a previous discussion, a project page, are interested in this topic or may help me in any way, I'll appreciate. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jura1:. I'd seen and I think is one of the solutions for one of the multiples situations. It could be a good starting point to make a more global analysis of this topic. I asked about P571, but it's obvious that the scope must include replaces (P1365), the boundaries with significant event (P793) and, as the talk mention, how it appears in the items of the new and the previous country. But I don't want focus in state/country only. For instance, when a territorial unit (municipality, region, etc.) change its name (not the boundary nor dependency), do we must create a new item ? And the item of its governor, is it common for both periods/names ? Label should show the difference, so, it seems that we will need two. Is it? or it seems excessive ?. I'd would like to talk/debat/discuss about the best solution and, be able to have a guideline clear and complete. The specific solutions for specific problems are usefull for a short time and we have a mix of "good individual criteris". Do you think we can find a space (and interested people, of course) to explore this common debat about this ontology ?. Thank you, Amadalvarez (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you can dig up discussions, but in any case, you probably won't get around accommodating globally all approaches, e.g.: 1 item, 2 items (present, past), 1 item (all)+1 (past). Try a consistent approach depending on the country/field you are editing and the WP articles present. --- Jura 22:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's probably a wise proposal. In fact, there are only 26 countries with qualifications in the P571; 3 other countries without P571, one of them with its history at P31 (NZ), another at P1365 (GER) and the third without any foundation information (FRA). The rest has only one unqualified data. If I ever build a reasonable proposal, I'll let you know. Thanks,Amadalvarez (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia article covering multiple topics

It seems that its properties for this type (P1963) value is currently under contesting, as of now, its P1963 values say that main subject (P921) and different from (P1889), as well as P921's Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) says "List subjects which the article covers. Do not use P527 "has part" as parts of an article are the title, sections and paragraphs."

But now one user pointed me that such P1963 values caused problems at some articles, and has part (P527) don't need to be "main" subject in common sense, for the time being I don't know which is the actual consensus on this matter. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that I watched its linked-in pages, something e.g. Q3406575 are also using has parts of the class (P2670). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dhx1: Maybe you can explain more here? --2409:8902:9321:BE18:ABE0:E214:E02D:B7D2 23:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Many of these items are conflation (Q14946528) of multiple distinct entities/topics into one due to Wikipedia often combining similar topics together to aid readability of the encyclopedia. has part (P527) and has parts of the class (P2670) would only be appropriate if referring to items which themselves are a conflation (Q14946528) or Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471), or otherwise these properties should be referring to title (Q783521), paragraph (Q194431), etc. The property different from (P1889) is probably the best to use for items which are conflation (Q14946528). If the item is Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) then main subject (P921) is probably also appropriate to use. Dhx1 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dhx1: But then, @Eurohunter: tells me on their talk page that "There are articles about series of cars or other products which has more and less common items.", and that user prefers not to disallow P527 usage for Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) items. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: @Eurohunter: Have a look at music of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Q55675394) and items referenced by different from (P1889). I reorganised the Wikipedia article links to Wikidata items depending on which Wikipedias use any of the variety of conflations of topics. Actual items we should have in Wikidata in the future are music of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Q55675394) (all the music contained in the game), Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Official Soundtrack (Q64547511) and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Official Soundtrack Box Set (Q5595150) which are two publications/products released with some or all of the works contained within music of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Q55675394). Thoughts? Dhx1 (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Reopening date

Hi. Amsterdam Sloterdijk Zuid (Q2347349) for example was open from 1890 to 1905 and again from 1956 to 1985, but currently ony the first two are given as date of official opening (P1619) and date of official closure (P3999). How should the latter two dates be entered into Wikidata? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Although the nl-lemma mentiones several stations on that location, it were actually multiple stations on multiple rail ways in multple periods. I would suggest to create a single wikidata item for every station in history, and maybe also a "container" to link to the nl-lemma that can be used to link to the historical stations. Edoderoo (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to present time as a range? (problem of Chinese timekeeping 時辰)

Li Fook Lam (Q7226094)'s exact times of birth and death are recorded on his gravestone, but in Chinese form ja:十二時辰, so they would be ranges of 2 hours. The gravestone reads "生於同治壬申年七月十八日巳時 **民國壬辰年正月十六日卯時", which should be 21 Aug 1872 (I'm not sure. cant find a reliable converter.) and 11 Feb 1952 (this is reliable).--Roy17 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

or (dates/date of birth)

The date of birth of Yosef Aharon Rabinovits (Q11728295) is 1852 or 1853. How to update it properly. Geagea (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As long as there is source for each, both should be added separately. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The source says (more then one) 1852 or 1853. Geagea (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Geagea: Perhaps add both dates with the same source, but apply qualifier sourcing circumstances (P1480) minimum (Q10585806) to 1852 and sourcing circumstances (P1480) maximum (Q10578722) to 1853? Dhx1 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
And what in case whem it's 1852 or 1854 (not between 1852 to 1854). Geagea (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems that we need new Q for "or". Geagea (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sjoerddebruin, you added 1850s to the date. Well it's not wrong but the Wikidata statement should say "1852 or 1853". In some way I see the date issue her some equivalent to othe date template in Commons which have "or". Geagea (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

We need a uniform way to handle record labels vs record companies vs long articles about the history of a label

In May 2019 Warner Bros. Records re branded to Warner Records, Warner Bros. Records Inc. became Warner Records LLC, and now it's a complete mess. Long story short: Most Wikipedia articles about larger labels are about more than just the label and usually will cover company history, the founders, the sub-labels, actual releases, etc. Wikipedians (and others!) have a legitimate wish to keep these articles together, but it makes it a nightmare to keep track of the correct, chronological data for music releases, legal records, etc. My suggestion: I think articles like these need to be moved to a meta-grouping like "history of Warner Bros. Records" or something similar. I'm not hung up on the name, VERY open to suggestions, but this is an issue that needs to be fixed or we'll end up reverting each other for ever. What do you guys think? Moebeus (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but cannot recommend a good solution. There is a similar issue with firearms manufacturers such as Steyr Arms (Q591359) that have changed many names in past or merged with other compaines. --M11rtinb (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
We have the same problem with publishers and imprints. - PKM (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

external ID URL not working

The molbio property MEROPS enzyme ID (P3717) was never used and I would like to. But you see in the property example the value does not show as link, although the property has a formatter URL. What could be the reason? --SCIdude (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The statement about formatter URL (P1630) has been deprecated. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Matěj Suchánek Jura added a normal rank URL (thanks) but still no link (I reloaded the page). What am I missing? --SCIdude (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Purge? --- Jura 07:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. SCIdude (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Request protection of Q63245258 as it continues to be vandalized with links that do not meet notability requirements. This has been an ongoing issue. 01:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see edits by which are only on this property. 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done by Mahir256. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons Village pump: One more Wikidata case

There is a discussion on Wikimedia commons about how vandalism on Wikidata is harming that project. The example given was HMendez (talkcontribslogs)'s edits on Wikidata entry Q3071895 were not reverted till six years afterward. Here is a link to that discussion. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact it is label vandalism, while linked enwiki article has average 1 visitor per day (source), ptwiki article 17 per day (source) and commons category less than 1 visitor per day. From my point of view just making a mountain out of a molehill.--Jklamo (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Vandalism has been happening on every wiki, since wikis were invented. I just reverted one at the English Wikipedia which has gone unnoticed since 2015-06-21.[2] Ghouston (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It's simple. Vandalism is everywhere. Vandalism fighters are also everywhere. Depending on how many you got of each, vandalism can be kept under control.. or not. A large wiki like enwiki refuses to use data from Wikidata because it could be vandalized. If the vandalism fighters from enwiki would dedicate some of their time to Wikidata, this problem wouldn't exist. Not only that, it would help all the wikis using Wikidata. Chicken and egg. Many big wikis don't want Wikidata because of vandalism. Wikidata has more vandalized information because the big wikis don't want it. Perhaps a watchlist that shows Wikidata changes that affect a particular wiki would help. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 15:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Not very original I suppose: [Epic] Wikidata watchlist improvements (client). Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 15:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
... and I suppose all is perfect in Wikimedia Commons. I regularly compare IRL some Wiki-users to politicians. We have similar people on FR Wiki. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Compound given names

Louis-Julius (Q50270823) was changed from "Louis Julius" to "Louis-Julius", should we have a separate entry for the French hyphenated version of each duo, or should it be just one entry? --RAN (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Louis Julius" doesn't sound like a valid combination for a given name item, they should be used separately with qualifiers. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
We know your opinion, please wait for more people to respond before you begin changing entries please! The whole point of asking a question is to get consensus first. --RAN (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
My thinking is that they should be two separate entries - "Louis Julius" as a double name and "Louis-Julius" as a hyphenated double name. Where I come from it's common to ask if people spell their double names with or without a hyphen and it can also give an indication as to how it's pronounced. Same goes for last names. EDIT: The term "compound given name" is a bit confusing to some - to me "Louisjulius" would be a compound given name, while "Louis-Julius" is a double name. For Spanish speakers the same difference is not there. Moebeus (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Roadmap update: improve the connection between values and references

Hello all,

As you may have seen it in the development roadmap or discussed with us at an event, we are working on a project called "signed statements". During the research that we are currently running to understand better the various stakeholders' needs for this feature, it occurred to us that a first step should be tackled first: informing editors when there is a mismatch between a value and the reference attached to it. This is why we decided to start working on tainted references before moving forward with signed statements.

So, what is it going to look like? The first step is to inform the editor, when they change a value without changing the reference, that something may be wrong and that they should double-check if the value and the reference are still matching. The editor will have the option to change the reference, or to state that the value is still correct (for example, they could have been just fixing a typo). During this first phase, the notification will happen only for the editor who made the change. The second step is to make it appear to all users (a bit like the constraints) so other people can monitor the mismatched statements and help fixing them.

Our goal is to improve the data quality and the connection between values and references by making it clearer when a problem occurs, without adding too much extra work on the editors' shoulders.

The development will start next week, and we expect a first version to be tested in the upcoming weeks. As usual, you can follow the progress of the development tasks in the Weekly Summary. You can also have a look at the Phabricator board. If you have any question, feel free to reach me. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that, the intention for creating this feature wasn't shared before it was coded up.
How does the feature deal with statements that have multiple qualifiers that are backed by different references? (Maybe the reference for when a marriage ended is not the same reference as the one for the marriage location) ChristianKl❫ 12:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: If you read Lea's message you would have noticed that "development will start next week", so it hasn't been "coded up" at all yet. Also this is something I've seen discussed here on wiki before so it shouldn't be much of a surprise; in fact there has been a phab ticket on at least part of this since 2014: - T76232 "nudge when editing a statement to check reference". ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As a first step as long as any part of any reference on the statement was changed we consider the edit fine and don't show a warning. We might tweak that later based on your feedback but I'm not sure we can make it much smarter than that. But I'm open to ideas. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I already expressed my opinion and I know that few persons will agree with it, but the fact is that putting more constraint when modifying a statement will reduce vadalism and that will be critical if WD want to become a central hub for data. We can't ask people to share their data if we can't ensure the integrity of this data.
If we don't want to accept that the change of the value of a statement is followed by the deletion of the related reference, then we should at least limit this possibility to registered users. IPs should not be able to perform a change of a value without changing the reference. Clicking twice a button is not enough to limit vandalism. Snipre (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What methods of adding data will this apply to? The GUI? Some or all of the various APIs? The ability to edit Wikidata through a Wikipedia that displays Wikidata article in an article?

A different point is the claim in a closed Phabricator thread that one could indicate that an existing reference supports a change by changing retrieved (P813). That only applies to online sources, not paper sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It will be used on the GUI, but not on APIs at that point. Maybe later if people request it. As for the mw:Wikidata Bridge, it will include a similar feature to make sure that people see the existing references and update them if needed.
I believe that the use of "retrieved" was only mentioned as an example of what one could change in a reference. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
A rather common use case is for an editor to use a paper source, such as Dictionary of National Biography (Q1210343), is used to add a birth or death date, but the original editor is completely oblivious to the existence of the Julian calendar (Q11184). So a later editor must change the date to correctly interpret the source. No "retrieved", because it's paper. No change in the information about the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing this. --- Jura 00:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


see also (P1659) - I do not understand why must have a single value. There may be more properties that are helpful. For istance Commons creator shows 4 errors. Please let's discuss there: Property_talk:P1659#Single_value--Pierpao (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Label for taxon

In the example Alkanna tinctoria (Q856964), should the preferred EN label be the taxon name or the common name? (In this case, the EN wiki article is titled with the taxon name.) I looked at the project page but I didn't find best practices for labels. Thanks! - PKM (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial says the label should “usually” be the taxon name, so I’ll follow that. - PKM (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Relation between an interchange and the roads it joins together

From what I've briefly seen it seems like there's a bit of a mess with Japanese road items.

Part of the problem is the incorrect use of of (P642) on interchange items. Is there a better property than connects with (P2789) to fix these? I feel like that property would rather describe the relation between the roads themselves (e.g. ROAD connects with ROAD via INTERCHANGE). --SilentSpike (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to ask about that on for quite some time as well. For example on Fai Chai Intersection (Q16434047) I also used connects with (P2789), and adding the direction by a qualifier. Additionally for those roads ending at the intersection, added the intersection as terminus (P559). As other properties there's located on street (P669), which also not fit that well. There's also the question how to link streets when there is no named intersection - or where I have that problem, to connect the canals in Bangkok. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (interchange) "part of" (some road)
and (interchange) "part of" (some other road) ? --- Jura 21:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • This was my initial thought, but I'm not sure if the interchange is really part of the road unless it's a major meets minor road situation. --SilentSpike (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Maybe the road project participants have some suggestion. --- Jura 15:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@B.O.B. jp: --Rschen7754 00:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Better to

Alexis900 (talkcontribslogs) Asqueladd (talkcontribslogs) BeneBot* (talkcontribslogs) Detcin (talkcontribslogs) Dough4872 (talkcontribslogs) Gz260 (talkcontribslogs) Happy5214 (talkcontribslogs) Imzadi1979 (talkcontribslogs) Jakec (talkcontribslogs) Labant (talkcontribslogs) Liuxinyu970226 (talkcontribslogs) Ljthefro (talkcontribslogs) naveenpf (talkcontribslogs) Puclik1 (talkcontribslogs) Rschen7754 (talkcontribslogs) Scott5114 (talkcontribslogs) SounderBruce (talkcontribslogs) TCN7JM (talkcontribslogs) TimChen (talkcontribslogs) Bodhisattwa (talkcontribslogs) Daniel Mietchen (talkcontribslogs) Tris T7 TT me Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Roads plus (per WD:A) @Jianhui67, Nikki, Okkn, Penn Station, Sotiale:. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

My view would to be to use connects with (P2789) on highway items, with the intersecting highway as the value and the interchange as a qualifier (like SilentSpike suggests). I would not say an interchange is "part of" a road, and part of (P361) is already used for parts of multi-state highways (like Interstate 35 in Texas (Q2445457) and Interstate 35 (Q94150), though that particular example isn't tagged). In the US, the value of terminus (P559) is normally the highway(s) which the subject ends at, with the appropriate direction qualifier. terminus location (P609) might be useful, though this is usually used for the city/town or state/country (for routes ending at such a border) at the terminus. -happy5214 14:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


Q351651#P1472 shows a constraint (Commons Creator page). Why? Is namespace qualifier required?--Pierpao (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Just ignore it, server issues. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't ignore, we should have it fixed... --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bad titles/labels created by SourceMD

It seems there's an unknown number of wrong titles and labels in new items of scientific articles created by SourceMD.

Item: A Novel Monoallelic Nonsense Mutation in the NFKB2 Gene Does Not Cause a Clinical Manifestation (Q64100401)


A Novel Monoallelic Nonsense Mutation in the Gene Does Not Cause a Clinical Manifestation

and the original paper [3]

A Novel Monoallelic Nonsense Mutation in the NFKB2 Gene Does Not Cause a Clinical Manifestation

the problem is that all (?) italicized texts in articles' titles are left out.

Kpjas (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: since you created the linked item, can you look into this? ChristianKl❫ 10:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't find problem in output of Crossref/EuropePMC API.--GZWDer (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding text qualifier to Q17252?

Hi! I noticed there is a Tibetan flag used at Q17252. I added the date qualifiers (specifying when it was used by a particular government) but it would be nice to add a text qualifier too (stating that currently there is no official flag used to represent Tibet in any of the countries that control territory in the region, that the Central Tibetan Administration uses it as their flag, and that the PRC banned it in 1959)

This template is used in the Commons, but the question on whether/how to amend Wikidata material should go here. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Tibet from 1912 to 1951 (Q2444884) is the item for the state that used it. Ghouston (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
qualified with "followed by"="no value". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Change multiple labels at once?

Hello! Is there a way to change multiple labels at once? I know the script nameGuzzler.js, but it seems to allow adding new labels, not changing existing ones. Korg (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • QuickStatements. --- Jura 10:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Korg (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cameroon administrative regions

A professor here at Oxford has spent time in archives in Cameroon (Q1009) making a table of the country's administrative regions, as best as can be done with the surviving records. The results are in a paper and a data table which are both on open access. I don't foresee having the time to import this to Wikidata but I'm raising awareness here in case anyone else can work on it, given our currently sparse coverage of Cameroon. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what's the use ? I believe department of Cameroon (Q2306813) are already on databse : Bouzinac (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Knut Hamsun

Take a look at birth place for Q40826#P19. I'm sure this irks a lot of users! :D (Bad-bad-me, now you can't stop thinking about it!) Jeblad (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Now someone has added Q35494082 as yet another location. It is a 230 km long valley, which contains (or actually goes through) the municipalities Q113438 and Q488395. Q35494082 should be merged with Q1292655. Jeblad (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It's me. The nobel prize website reference claims Hamsun was born in Gudbrandsdalen :) (which is a very common toponym in Norway) :) Bouzinac (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nutrition Data

I noticed there is a ton of useful nutrition data on the sidebar of food products like Big Mac, but properties for those things do not seem to exist in Wikidata. Should properties be created for this kind of data? I think having that kind of data in Wikidata would be really useful, but I wasn't sure if this had already been disucssed before. U+1F360 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @U+1F360: collects such data. --Marsupium (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would really like to see nutritional info included, not sure how to structure it though, have been looking at beers like Windhoek Lager (Q2538549) Iwan.Aucamp (talk)

"references" bei "date of birth" and "date of death" - German speaker here?

Bei Personendaten erscheint in Wikidata neben dem Geburts- oder Todesdatum mit Referenz ein Wimpel. Klickt man auf den Wimpel erscheint: Suggestions "single best value constraint" (This property should contain a single “best” value. Of the current multiple values, one should be marked with “preferred” rank.) UND "citation needed constraint" (Statements for date of birth should have at least one reference.) - Die Folge: Das Datum erscheint doppelt in der Infobox und in den Commons wird weder die Kategorie Births noch Deaths erzeugt. (Beispiel: Category:Ingeborg Rönnblad) - Ist beim Klick auf den Wimpel neben dem Datum NUR "citation needed constraint", erscheint das Datum ordentlich und die "Kategorien 1876 births" und "1941 deaths" werden erzeugt. (Beispiel: Category:Lisa Ranft) - Wo kann ich "single best value constraint" finden und entfernen um ordentliche Daten zu erhalten? Adelfrank (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adelfrank: Die "single best value constraint" sagt aus, dass bei mehreren Werten ein Wert den bevorzugten Rang erhalten sollte (siehe Help:Ranking/de). Bei Lisa Ranft (Q20652760) wurde das Datum 11. August 1876 mit dem bevorzugten Rang markiert (ersichtlich an dem Symbol links neben dem Wert - das nach oben zeigende Dreieck ist hervorgehoben), bei Ingeborg Rönnblad (Q4976323) wurde bisher noch kein Wert mit dem bevorzugten Rang markiert. Wie Ränge gesetzt werden, wird unter Help:Ranking/de#Ränge_anwenden beschrieben. Es gibt in Wikidata auch ein deutschsprachiges Forum: Wikidata:Forum. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Danke. - Ich verstehe es nicht und weiss nicht was ich machen kann/soll. Wikidata ist ein Buch mit 7 Siegeln für mich. Wenn beide Werte stehen, ist das Ergebnis fehlerhaft (s. oben). Um nur "citation needed constraint" zu erhalten müsste ich irgendwas machen, nur was ist mir nicht klar. Wie Ränge gesetzt werden, ist toll erklärt: Um einer Aussage einen Rang zu verleihen, gehe zu einer Aussage und klicke auf [bearbeiten], - ich weiss weder ob ich auf edit klicken soll oder auf den Wimpel und [bearbeiten] gibt es schon mal garnicht, da ALLES english ist. Unter edit gibt es noch add qualifier, dazu nur eine einzige Vorgabe: sourcing circumstances. Klicke ich das an, muss irgendwas eingegeben werden, was wissen die Götter. Wenn man bei Wikidata kein perfektes english beherrscht, wird man echt kalt gestellt. Mit meinem Schulenglisch sehe ich hier weit und breit kein Land in Sicht. Trotzdem Danke für den Tipp u.a. dass es ein dt. Forum gibt, viell. versuche ich da mal mein Glück, Licht ins Dunkel zu bekommen. Schönes WE wünscht Adelfrank (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Adelfrank: Die Oberflächensprache kann auf Deutsch gesetzt werden: ganz oben im Menü, links neben dem Nutzernamen, auf "English" klicken und dann "Deutsch" als Sprache auswählen. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Adelfrank: Das deutsche Forum ist übrigens Wikidata:Forum. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Danke Valentina, wieder was Neues für mich. Auch Dir Ahoerstemeier, hat Valentina mir auch schon oben erklärt. Ich werde das Ganze mal dorthin übertragen, dennn mein Problem ist für mich weiterhin ungeklärt. Adelfrank (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jetzt habe ich endlich gefunden, wo ich draufklicken muss.
✓ Done Adelfrank (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WorldCat Identities for people lacking other identifiers

There seems to be a small but significant number of authors/subjects who are indexed on WorldCat Identities, but apparently not indexed by any other contributing database (e.g. VIAF, Library of Congress, ISNI, etc.). A current example is Ernestine Hara Kettler (Q66712318), at Kettler, Ernestine Hara 1896-. I think WorldCat is one of the most useful databases for biographies, in that it shows not only works by the subject but works about a subject (crucial in finding references and ascertaining identity) and provides a very helpful directory of libraries and other institutions to actually find the works (for old codgers like me who actually use offline print sources). WorldCat Identity pages are normally accessed through Wikimedia Authority control templates via the VIAF or LCCN ID. Is there a way to link such "non-indexed" people in Wikidata? And if not, why not make one? -Animalparty (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2019‎ (UTC)

I have been adding them as "described by url", but I am not opposed to any other creative solution, including a field synthesized from other field information to create the Worldcat url for all entries. --RAN (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Undo at diff pages

Have anyone noticed that undo link is currently missing from diff pages? (Or is it only me?) Rollback and restore are still there, but not the undo. You can still use it from the page history, but then it's impossible to undo a series of edits that are not the latest (unless you undo each edit individually). — Mike Novikoff 20:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I may add that it doesn't seem to be the case in this ("Wikidata:") namespace, but surely does in the main and "Template:" namespaces (at least). — Mike Novikoff 21:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the missing undo link, too, and was wondering why it was changed. Reverting vandalism has become a bit harder now. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In my case, I don't see it on the property namespace. It has been reported to the development team. Esteban16 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Novikoff, Kam Solusar, Esteban16: that is T232214 (affecting all entity namespaces – Item, Property, Lexeme) and should be fixed later today. (In the meantime, you can still find undo links in the history.) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of scholarly article (Q13442814)

scholarly article (Q13442814) has the description "article in an academic publication, usually peer reviewed", and is a subclass of scholarly publication (Q591041), article (Q191067) and scholarly work (Q55915575) but many instances are letters or news articles. There is also academic journal article (Q18918145), which is a subclass of Q13442814 but doesn't mention peer review, and is used similarly. How should these be used? It looks like what is needed is an item "article in an academic publication" that is only a subclass of article (Q191067), of which the others are a subclass and which can be used until the type of article is determined. Peter James (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Any examples of scholarly article (Q13442814) being used on news articles. --Trade (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It tends to be used for anything taken from an academic publication, even if it's in a news, letters, or book reviews section, e.g., Why most published research findings are false: author's reply to Goodman and Greenland (Q21563418). Ghouston (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's somewhat suboptimal. As it's used for any type of article in such publications, article(Q191067) would probably work better. --- Jura 08:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Addedd it at User:Research_Bot/issues#use_of_scholarly_article_(Q13442814)_in_P31. --- Jura 15:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

How to create a new property

Hey everyone,

how can i make a new property? You know, i work on Muslims notables biographies... a Property is needed for "madhhab". --Ruwaym (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ruwaym: Try WD:PP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Property proposal/madhhab, I hope not seem like trolling! --Ruwaym (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ruwaym: Doesn't movement (P135) cover this? The property proposal is currently very incomplete and will fail in this form. Multichill (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: I guess not. Salafism, Sufism (branches of them like Malamatiyya) , Islamic modernism etc are movements, But w:madhhabs are few schools backs to early Islam. If there is no active user who can help me about that property, you tell me what is needed, here or on my talk page. --Ruwaym (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Item update request

Please add “Amen” as last words on John Paul II (Q989). Thanks! -- 19:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Any source? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC). -- 19:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

New API parameter to add tags on edits summaries

Hello all,

As you know, it is possible to add tags in the edit summaries (eg "mobile edit"), especially for edits made by tools (eg "openrefine"). These tags are used to more easily find specific edits and monitor the entering data, for example on the Recent Changes where one can filter all edits made via the VisualEditor, or all edits that remove a sitelink.

So far, tool builders had to use hacky ways to make their tools automatically add the tag to the edit summaries. In order to improve this process, we started adding a tags parameter to a bunch of APIs, to allow the developers to integrate the tags directly in their API actions. Here's the list of impacted APIs:

  • wbeditentity
  • wbsetaliases
  • wbsetdescription
  • wbsetlabel
  • wbsetsitelink
  • wbcreateclaim
  • wbremoveclaims
  • wbremovequalifiers
  • wbremovereferences
  • wbsetclaim
  • wbsetclaimvalue
  • wbsetqualifier
  • wbsetreference

This change has already been deployed, so you can start using the new tags parameter right away.

You can find more information about tags and how to create some new ones on mw:Help:Tags (this page would probably need some love, feel free to improve it). If you encounter any issue, feel free to let a comment in the related ticket.

@Magnus Manske, Pintoch, Pasleim: I guess you're some of the people that can be interested in this change :)

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): yes I saw that, it is great! Many thanks. We should add support for the feature in Wikidata-Toolkit (Thank you Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) too!) − Pintoch (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Changed my entire OAuth tag sytem to make use of that. Now I can't use WDFIST bedause E1:The tag "wdfist" is not allowed to be manually applied. Changing everything back now. WTF? --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
OAuth tagging has been working fine and is secure, why to change it? --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: tags can be applied via the API only if they have been created for that specific purpose. OAuth tags cannot be applied manually, they are automatically added if the action was performed using OAuth authentication. So for OAuth applications there is generally nothing to change (tags continue to be added automatically). This change is useful for other applications which cannot use OAuth (such as OpenRefine, which cannot embed OAuth secrets in its source code). Or if you use the same generic OAuth provider for multiple applications (such as Widar), we could create tags for each of these applications and you could apply these tags via the API (so the edits would be tagged by the generic OAuth tag and the specific application tag). If you want such tags to be created let me know. − Pintoch (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

New termbox making it hard to copy and paste QIDs on mobile?

I just wanted to check first if it's me or not: I think that since recently it became rather hard to select the QID when on a mobile device, in order to copy and paste the QID. My guess it has to do with the new termbox (which is pretty awesome, by the way). Basically, I can't tap or doubletap on the QID. It works with labels and other content, but not the QID. I am running Chrome on a Pixel 3a. Is this known or should a bug be filed to fix this? --Denny (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not known. A ticket would be <3. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, filed T232356.. --Denny (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't enter labels in Montenegrin

It looks like our site can't support labels in Montenegrin (ISO 639-3 cnr), when entering, it only warns me that The language code "cnr" is unknown. Please use a language code known to the system, such as "en". -- 08:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • It works only for monolingual strings, e.g. at Q7700307#P1705. --- Jura 17:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Label supports are only happened if and when your language is supported by MediaWiki software itself, which as I've checked, non of the core-0-mostused group messages are translated, so far not yet.
Notifying most active editors of Incubator test Wikipedia: @ExplodingPoPUps, Bellatrix10, Zanović, Srdjan m, Ookuninusi:@Je7roi, Romaine, Incnis Mrsi, Markus cg1, Orbwiki107:@StevenJ81, Rovoobob, Ivarhcp4ever, Ooswesthoesbes, KOMITA:@Nesmir Kudilovic, Lujki, WescoM, Ego and his own, Acamicamacaraca2:@Katxis, Lontschar, Porfirius Maximus, MarkoM5, Crnogorac98:@Lojbanist, Nikola Krivokapić, Pop Milo Jovovic, MontenegrinSportEditor, AT44:@Adrian Hernandez, Akhemen, Krassotkin, Gogash86:@Vlad5250, НиколаБ, DannyS712, KHMELNYTSKYIA, DaveZ123:@Green Giant, PlyrStar93, Silverije, Eniisi Lisika, Чръный человек:, anyone I pinged should have time to translate those messages, if you want to see and edit labels in your language. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Amire80, I thought you were going to activate this, at least for this type of purpose. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I did activate it for translatewiki, with crn-latn and crn-cyrl.
Wikidata has labels in British English, and in quite a lot of cases they are definitely useful, such as autumn (Q1314). So there can be labels in Montenegrin, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #381

Norwegian Wikipedia

Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769)

Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (Q32176383)

w:en:Norwegian Wikipedia

Now I have a headache. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 22:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: This looks too hard to resolve unless if one day this Meta-Wiki RFC can be proceed, more informations may be provided by langcom members: @Amire80, N-true, Antony D. Green, Maor X, GerardM:@Jon Harald Søby, Klbroome, MF-Warburg, Evertype, Millosh:@SPQRobin, santhosh.thottingal, Satdeep Gill, StevenJ81, Doc James:. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Also the nominator of that RFC @Jeblad:. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Brilliant. I don't like it. Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q32176383. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 23:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Norway have two versions of the language, Bokmål and Nynorsk? --RAN (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not very complicated. There used to by Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769). Then in 2004 Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia (Q2349453) split off, and a short while later Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) became Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (Q32176383) after a vote. It kept (and still keeps) the URL, for partly historical, partly political and partly technical reasons, but it is not the same thing. (The problem in relation to Wikidata is that a lot of the connected Wikipedia articles cover Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (Q32176383) and Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia (Q2349453) in the same article, but that's just another variation of the Bonnie & Clyde problem.) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jon Harald Søby: And why exactly wouldn't it be the same thing? Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 06:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Are Serbia and Montenegro (Q37024) and Serbia (Q403) the same thing? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jon Harald Søby: You didn't answer my question. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 08:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Norwegian Wikipedia before the split was the Wikipedia of both Nynorsk and Bokmal. It's now just Bokmal (/Riksimal) Wikipedia. Thus, there are two entities and the analogy which Jon has given to you is a valid one. Serbia is the successor state of FR Yugoslavia / Serbia and Montenegro, but Serbia is not FR Yugoslavia / Serbia and Montenegro. --Millosh (talk)
@Millosh: By that analogy, the Dutch Wikipedia ceased to exist when fywiki was launched. Except that's not true either. Plus, according to Wikipedia, nowiki was already de facto written in Bokmål/Riksmål. And even so, a change in scope does not mean the project was killed off. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 11:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: In both cases, it's about different things, no matter what the political decision was. If the idea is to structure WikiData entities logically, then they should be treated differently. If not, they shouldn't be. Also, I really don't want to spend any minute more on this issue, which implies that I don't care what will be done. --Millosh (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Millosh: I don't object to adding start and end dates to the language of the work. In fact, I just did. Still not a new project. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion this is one continuous project, and it should have one page at nowiki and one item here. Still, unless the articles at nowiki are merged the items can't be merged. Also note that the RFC has nothing to do with the current articles at nowiki, and should not be used as argument for any specific actions on neither articles nor items. Jeblad (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeblad: What do you mean, "one continuous project"? StevenJ81 (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The articles w:no:Wikipedia på norsk (Q191769) and w:no:Wikipedia på bokmål og riksmål (Q191769) both refer to the same project, and I believe the later page should be a redirect to the first as this is still the correct name given the “no” prefix. That prefix is wrong, but changing that is another discussion that can not (and should not) be decided here. Jeblad (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Bonnie & Clyde solution? (and I don't mean a crime spree). - Jmabel (talk)
Didn't know bokmål was different from riksmål (besides nynorsk) Bouzinac (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
"riksmål" isn't a language, it's a sociolect for those that think everything was better when Norway was under Danish rule. ;-) Moebeus (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I had been wondering why langcom considered it inappropriate to identify it with the accurate language code. --- Jura 13:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: By checking IANA's language subtag list:
Type: language
Subtag: nb
Description: Norwegian Bokmål
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Latn
Macrolanguage: no
Type: grandfathered
Tag: no-bok
Description: Norwegian Bokmal
Added: 1995-08-23
Deprecated: 2000-02-18
Preferred-Value: nb
Type: language
Subtag: nn
Description: Norwegian Nynorsk
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Latn
Macrolanguage: no
Type: grandfathered
Tag: no-nyn
Description: Norwegian Nynorsk
Added: 1995-08-23
Deprecated: 2000-02-18
Preferred-Value: nn
Type: variant
Subtag: hognorsk
Description: Norwegian in Høgnorsk (High Norwegian) orthography
Added: 2010-01-02
Prefix: nn
Comments: Norwegian following Ivar Aasen's orthographical principles,
  including modern usage.

Very interesting, why those who say their orthography as riksmål don't request such a tag? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A strange thing is that Norwegian officially has (at least) two ways to write the language, but only one way to speak it. But the diversity in how people speak the language is actually much larger than the ways they write it. I cannot easily see if a text is written in nynorsk or bokmål. But there are many forms of Norwegian I do not understand. Not only in the southwest, where they often write in nynorsk, but also in the north where they write in bokmål. IP (Hej!) 07:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Support merging, there are just two Norwegian Wikipedias, No reason to have 3rd. -- 06:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why people would think that changing a valid P31 value to Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261) could be acceptable. --- Jura 13:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: I was about to say, I just reworked both items. And why, well, because the value was actually invalid? It's not a Wikipedia language edition, that's Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769). This is merely a short description of a part of its history. I was going to look up the best value for that sort of thing, but can't think of anything similar right now. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think your changes are helpful. Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261) is probably helpful for you on Wikipedia, but it's not really valid around here. --- Jura 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: Not worth arguing over, I've removed the claim. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you revert your stuff. Deleting valid claims is considered vandalism around here. Wikipedia might refactor articles to the current view of the world, but Wikidata doesn't work that way. --- Jura 13:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: No, those claims were invalid. And if you falsely accuse my good faith edits of being vandalism once more, I'll be reporting you. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 14:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • By reading two nowiki articles, I would say that I also vote Symbol support vote.svg Support merging both, there are really nothing about histories that we must need to have separated two, and nearly Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V "synced" articles to describe, just use one article to describe domain usage history is already Okay. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: To me, saying this as Bonnie and Clyde case will only make troubles for the future created Wikipedias, they will have to re-judge if they want a link to be fall under one item, and so makes them more complex troubles when maintaining interwiki links. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Why? Everyone but no-wiki uses the "Bonnie and Clyde" item, no-wiki uses the "Bonnie" item and the "Clyde" item. Presumably it would be pretty obvious to any future Wikipedia that they go the "normal" way, not the way used by one wiki. - Jmabel (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
      • There are essentially two ways of doing this. None of them is today's approach with a mostly blank item or one that is an instance of "Wikipedia stub". This might work at Wikipedia, but not here. Also it's odd that has no mention at all of Nynorsk (Q25164). Why is this omitted? --- Jura 17:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Jmabel, Jura1: That said again and again, I've read both nowiki articles, and I now believe that their contents are Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V copied, not enough for merging suggestion? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There was a project for all language variants at nowiki. At one point a new project nnwiki emerged for the Nynorsk language variant. For a short time Nynorsk was allowed at both projects. Somewhat later users at nowiki redefined the project to be “Bokmål and Riksmål”, yet kept on using the “no” macro code. There are now one article about the previous language situation, and an article about the current language situation. As a project nowiki is one continuous project, but when it comes to use of specific language variants Nynorsk is discontinued. There are two articles, and given that Wikidata is supposed to support the actual articles in Wikipedia further discussion about whether there should be two items are moot. Further discussions about merging the articles should be left as an issue for the community at nowiki. What can (and should) be discussed here is how the articles should be described. Such articles isn't the real thing, it is a description of the real thing. The article Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) is about the real thing (ie the project), given the use of the “no” language code, and Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) is an article about the language history of the real thing.
    Note that a discussion about use of “no” as a language prefix for nowiki does not belong on Wikidata, it should be resolved at Meta. I would prefer use of “nb” as a language prefix, but that discussion does not belong here.
    There are really four language variants in Norway. Two are official, “Nynorsk” and “Bokmål”. “Riksmål” is semi-official, and somewhat backed as “Moderat Bokmål”. The form Moderat Bokmål is between Bokmål and Riksmål. Both Bokmål and Riksmål is allowed at nowiki. “Høgnorsk” is unofficial, but allowed at nnwiki. Høgnorsk is an older form of Nynorsk. These are all written form of Norwegian, as spoken Norwegian mostly follow local dialects or sociolects. Jeblad (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    • If what nowiki article they are connected to is correct, then Q32176383 is about, while Q191769 is about both and Their relationship to each other is kind of the same as between Q31/Q55 and Q476033, respectively, common history and still very related, but currently distinct. However, since almost all other wikis link to Q191769, it does seem likely that the nowiki articles should swap their Qs (either that, or everyone else). It does also seem strange that both present themselves as a Wikipedia project. There has been only one It just reduced its (sub-)language scope at one point. (I certainly didn't feel like moving from one project to the other back then.) Ters (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ters: Yes, the question is when something becomes something new. When an organization changes its name but nothing else, does it become a new company? If it changes ownership, does it become something new? If it fires half of its employees? Did Wikimedia Commons cease to exist when it stopped accepted GFDL-licensed photos and should the current Wikimedia Commons be treated like a new thing? I'm not quite sure myself where to draw the line. If nowiki has purged or translated half of its articles after the nnwiki split (I have no idea, but I suspect not), that would help to make a case for the current nowiki being something new. Right now, I haven't even been able to pinpoint an actual date when the vote to restrict the wiki to Bokmål/Riksmål became policy. In fact, did it ever? Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 08:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Seems to have been decided by vote on 3 april 2005 [4]. There was discussion about a re-vote, but 20 april 2005 it was decided not to go forward with it [5], which I think validates the original vote. - Soulkeeper (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Also, the Norwegian wikipedias don't run on official policy so much as tradition, best current practice, and bickering. The closest thing to an official decision that we usually get, is when everyone is completely fed up with discussing the topic, and just want to go on with their lives. Whatever seems to be the closest thing to consensus at the time, is what usually ends up being the BCP going forward, unless or until someone starts making a stink about it again. - Soulkeeper (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
            • According to enwiki, nowiki was already de facto Bokmål/Riksmål. If the outcome of the vote was never ratified, it's essentially still only de facto Bokmål/Riksmål. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 15:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
              • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That's how we roll. - Soulkeeper (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @ters: Article (and item) Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) is only about nowiki, nnwiki did not exist. It had although Norwegian Nynorsk. he nnwiki project was never a part of nowiki, nnwiki was and is an independent project of nowiki. Jeblad (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
        • That is not immediately obvious. The title is ambiguous, and about half the history section is about after nnwiki split out, including what must be considered a joint award. The next section is just as valid post-split, jointly or separately, as before the split. The section about the domain names for Norwegian Wikipedia mentions as well. The paragraph about is shorter, but that is because it came into being too late to have a domain. The only section that excludes nnwiki is the section for statistics, but that section blurs the line between the nowiki that was, which contained nynorsk, and the nowiki that is. The first sentence clearly is about the nowiki that was, but is the first sentence in an article always more correct than the rest? As it is, its meaning is outnumbered. Furthermore, other wikis disagree on what the item is about. If anything, more items are needed. Ters (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is w:Wikipedia:No original research also policy on Wikidata? Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 08:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    I do not know, but it does not matter! As long as at least one project has two different articles Wikidata should have two items. A merge of the article is not our thing to decide here, it is up to the local project. IP (Hej!) 08:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually it does. Even if Wikidata is forced to have items for articles, the statements on those items should be verifiable. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 15:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Why? We allow linking to Wikiversity which is known as an original research site, so why this wiki can't allow? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I'm not really familiar with Wikiversity, but two things: regardless of having an item or not, is Wikidata forced to import statements that can't be verified? And second, wikiversity:Wikiversity:Original research suggests that original research still should be verifiable or at least be falsifiable. Whether Norwegian Wikipedia ceased to exist in 2005 appears to be a matter of nothing but opinion over definitions. You can't prove it happened and you can't prove it didn't happen. I don't think Wikiversity would allow that. Being unable to prove either way, I believe the burden of proof is on those who say it did happen. For comparison: if someone claims God exists, the burden of proof is on them. Not on everyone else to prove God doesn't exist. "God doesn't exist" is falsifiable (easy: show him), while "God exists" is not falsifiable. (you can't check every atom in every universie in every dimension) - Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 09:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The situation is quite simple; there are two articles and it can't be resolved here. Jeblad (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Odd Commons category sitelink

Abandoned Barge Act of 1992 (Q28405208) is sitelinked to commons:Category:Barges in the United States, which is not altogether unrelated but seems wrong. It looks like the connection was made by EdgarsBot (talkcontribslogs) and turned into a sitelink by Pi bot (talkcontribslogs). Normally I'd just drop the bad sitelink, but I suspect that there is some other item to which the Commons category should actually link. - Jmabel (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There's Category:Barges of the United States (Q8289889), but that's linked correctly to another Commons category. I can't see any item for "Category:Barges in the United States", so it should probably just be unlinked. Ghouston (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
It traces back to the Commons category link in en:Abandoned Barge Act of 1992, added by @Jphill19:. I've removed it [6] [7], and created Category:Barges in the United States (Q67198955). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case, I completely agree with that removal, but there are definitely times when it makes sense for the See also section of a Wikipedia article to link a Commons category that would not be an appropriate sitelink for the article. If the mere presence of such a link is taken to imply that there necessarily should be such a sitelink, we have a process problem. All the more so if that is done by a bot. - 04:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I have yet to find a good example of that situation. In most cases, the Commons link isn't actually useful or relevant (such as this case), or it indicates that there's an issue either on Wikipedia or Commons that needs to be resolved (e.g., by creating a new commons category). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Wikidata is in a position to tell another project that they need to create a category or article. - Jmabel (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata content is quite often used to say "there's something missing here, perhaps fix that?" - for example, en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New WikiProject - Textile arts

We’ve kicked off a new project - Wikidata:WikiProject Textile arts. Please join us if you’d like to help improve coverage of sewing, weaving, knitting, lacemaking, needlework, and other related crafts. - PKM (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Connection of fictional and real locations

@Loominade, Shisma, Nvrandow: (see Topic:Uxejvxhjztld09m7 and User talk:Loominade#Q59818657 for the beginning of that discussion). Apparently some people do not see any problems mixing fictional and real locations in one "hierarchical" statement like:


I have no opinion about the last one, but the first two definitely will make (at least) my life more complicated. parent astronomical body (P397) is used in infoboxes in wikipedia for showing list of exoplanets, and it was never implied that one should filter out items with instance of (P31) fictional planet (Q2775969) (and even that is not enough, because Andor (Q66724357) parent astronomical body (P397) Procyon (Q13034)). My understanding is that hierarchy should be optimized for simplifying most frequent usages, rather than exotic ones. I'd suggest to use parent astronomical body (P397) to connect either functional object to fictional object or real object to real object. Connection between fictional object and real prototype can be expressed via fictional analog of (P1074) Ghuron (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Valentina.Anitnelav Thierry Caro Shisma (talk) Arlo Barnes (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Narration & TomT0m Valentina.Anitnelav Shisma (talk) ElanHR Arlo Barnes (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Fictional universes--Loominade (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

related discussion--Loominade (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Strictly speaing, I guess a proper qualifier might be useful. I think, that qualifier would be nature of statement (P5102), though I'm not clear what the target would be.
BUT it's worth remembering that every single statement about a fictional item that is not in relation to the fictional nature itself (such as present in work (P1441) or first appearance (P4584)) is in the exact same situation, so I don't see why fictional locations ought to be somehow singled out any more than Harry Potter (Q3244512) being a British resident... Circeus (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: The difference between Axanar (Q57032278) parent astronomical body (P397) Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) and Harry Potter (Q3244512) country of citizenship (P27) United Kingdom (Q145) is that normally in wikidata we do not produce a list of people who has both lion and unicorn on their passport (it will be both incomplete and meaninglessly huge). Building a list of exoplanet for a specific star is certainly more practical query, in theory every wikipedia article about extrasolar system would benefit from one. Also in sci-fi, portrait of star that hosts fictional planet sometimes differs from what we know about that star now. For instance in Andromeda (Q513228) star Epsilon Tucanae (Q2980984) is described as "located in 90pc from solar system and radiates 78L⊙" Ghuron (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ghuron: for your hypothetical query for exoplanets you should make sure that your child object actually is instance of (P31) extrasolar planet (Q44559) for reasons other than it might be fictional. it could also be a exocomet (Q2855300), a circumstellar disk (Q3235978), or even a spacecraft (Q40218) (at some point in the future 😬). all these are yet allowed by the constrains of parent astronomical body and you don't want them in your list.--Shisma (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Shisma: Not all exoplanets has instance of (P31) extrasolar planet (Q44559) (see MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb (Q860312) as example), so I have to use wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q44559 And as long as I'm in sparql - that's fine, but when I'm doing infobox on lua, I'm much more performance constrained (expensive function calls, limitations on number of loaded wikibase objects, etc). When spacecraft (Q40218) will have extrasolar parent astronomical body (P397), wikidata will unlikely be relevant to anyone except few AI, specialized in history. And I still don't understand what is wrong with creating fictional star that will have fictional analog of (P1074) like it was proposed in previous discussions. --Ghuron (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
So just filtering out all items with instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279)* fictional entity (Q14897293) would be too expensive? The problem with creating new items for fictional analogues for other statements than P31 and P279 is that there would be the need to duplicate another huge portion of wikidata (besides classes also individuals). There is potentially the need to duplicate any place/administrative territory. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: the asterisk after P279 is the problem, I don't know how many items should I fetch in order to prove (or disprove) statement. I was thinking about that stuff for some time, and it looks like I need to define issue more clearly. In fact it is quite unlikely that statements like "fictional item->relation->real item" should cause a lot of problems for infoboxes. For instance, when I'm building a list of exoplanets I'd rather use child astronomical body (P398) not parent astronomical body (P397). So the real problem is how to distinguish Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) child astronomical body (P398) Axanar (Q57032278) from Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) child astronomical body (P398) Epsilon Eridani b (Q867895) And here the idea of Circeus might work. I'm not sure about nature of statement (P5102), but if we can put from fictional universe (P1080) Star Trek multiverse (Q18043309) as a qualifier for the first statement - it would probably solve majority of issues. Ghuron (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So the real problem is how to distinguish Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) child astronomical body (P398) Axanar (Q57032278) from Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) child astronomical body (P398) Epsilon Eridani b (Q867895)

correct me if i'm wrong but that can be solved by setting the value to depreciated so it won't be returned in a query. isn't that what the rank is meant for? --Shisma (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Shisma: rank would definitely work for me, but I always thought that deprecated rank is used to indicate incorrect (or no longer correct) statements (e.g. there are 3 measurements of parallax (P2214) for Epsilon Eridani (Q194394), but the one that comes from Gaia DR2 can be considered as most accurate one). In that sense the statement you've added is totally correct. It just has nothing to do with observable universe :) --Ghuron (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I always thought that deprecated rank is used to indicate incorrect (or no longer correct) statements

it is incorrect in that it is fictional. at least it is less correct then the other values. we could also set the other two values to preferred which seems more appropriate while it is also more work, when we are expecting a large number of child objects as the star we know most about (Sun (Q525)) has. 😬 --Shisma (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification, Ghuron! I never thought about inverse statements in this context. I agree with Shisma that Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) child astronomical body (P398) Axanar (Q57032278) should be deprecated. (Statements about fictional universes should be limited to items about fictional objects). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We can also specify reason for deprecation (P2241) qualifier, but I couldn't find any applicable value at list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174). Maybe we should create one? Ghuron (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ghuron: well there is fictional speculation (Q63077779) which seems to have precisely that meaning though the wording could be improved. Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) child astronomical body (P398) Axanar (Q57032278) / reason for deprecation (P2241) fictional speculation (Q63077779)--Loominade (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like we are close to reach consensus here. Let me summarise it and see if anyone has any objections:

  1. There are no problem when fictional entity (Q14897293) has statement that uses concrete object (Q4406616) (e.g. Axanar (Q57032278) parent astronomical body (P397) Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) as well as all examples from my initial post)
  2. It is possible to have reverse statement where concrete object (Q4406616) utilizes fictional entity (Q14897293) (e.g. Epsilon Eridani (Q194394) child astronomical body (P398) Axanar (Q57032278)) but it should have deprecated rank and reason for deprecation (P2241) fictional speculation (Q63077779) qualifier

Right? Ghuron (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

[corrected your summery] agreed--Loominade (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think it's appropriate for real entities to have statements pointing to fictional entities like that. A fictional universe can adapt parts of the real world, but that doesn't affect the real objects. --Yair rand (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I do not see "ideal" approach here, but this one is at least a) consistent b) cause minimum practical problems for both astronomers and "fictional universes". If you see any non-discussed issues - please share them with us --Ghuron (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
One problem is also that "fictional universes" does not always follow normal logic. One problem I remember from an article on svwp, is that a fictional armed force only recruited a handfull men each year. The armed force still had thousands of men in service. Another problem I remember from StarTrek is that Bajor has X moons but one less in an alternative timeline. Picard is married and father of a son and still Captain of Enterprise in one timeline, but Admiral and unmarried in another timeline. 622 017 074 (Hej!) 12:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
this problem has been addressed and solved here. I don't see how this is a relevant problem in this particular discussion--Loominade (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Conversion of units

To be able to convert from one unit to another, in a safe and predictable way, we need some kind of normalized description of an unit. This is almost the same as Wolfram Language unit code (P7007), but it refers the actual items, and not application specific entries. In that case we also loose precision as we end up with square foot (Q857027), using an undefined foot, where we really should use for example a Swedish foot of 296.9 cm. An example from nowiki is a square Norwegian mil. The entry for Scandinavian mile (Q42764) can't be used, it is an item for the history about the different Scandinavian mil. A fun example for nerds; take a look at the units for w:Magnetic complex reluctance.

So how should this be done? The bulk of the units is composed of a reference to a base or derived unit (which could be implemented as an item) and that item has a power component (which could be implemented as an qualifier). A list of such referenced units are conceptually multiplied together. It is possible to make derived units by merging and simplifying such lists, and when ordered they can be used for further lookup of normalized names. Only the base unit needs a conversion to standard unit (P2442), unless we want to materialize into the item. But if we chose to materialize, then we should not refer to derived units. Because the scheme is rather compute intensive without materialization, the results should be cached in the clients, otherwise it would easily eat the whole load budget for a page at Wikipedia. In this respect, note that the computed units will not change over the pages where it is used.

I would propose

  1. we create a property “unit derivation” that holds references to items for units, and a “unit power” that goes as qualifier. All items should have this qualifier, even those that would otherwise have a power of one (1).
  2. we create properties “unit prefix” that points to an item used as a prefix for this unit, and an “unit offset”, as it might be necessary to recompute the prefix and offset for a computed unit. [A missing point here; there should be a statement that holds “unit precision”. If a unit is defined with a given precision, then a value should not be given with a higher precision.]
  3. we create properties “unit compression” that points to an item defining the algorithm, with a “unit scale” and a “unit log”.

The first makes conversions of length, weight, and most physical properties possible. The second makes conversion of temperature and time possible. The third makes conversions to neper, bel, and decibel possible.

Most likely I have made some important omissions. Jeblad (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Did you check conversion to SI unit (P2370) and the way it's included in the configuration for query server/normalized triples? --- Jura 22:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
That property holds an implicit reference to a unit and a conversion factor for the prefix. (Neglecting multiplication of two slightly different units, which gives a square length for example.) It will be pretty hard to unwind that to get to a normalized unit representation for non-SI units. The core problem is the assumption of a single system where all occurrences can be referred. Even if something is measured, and you have some quantity of units, it does not imply that you can recalculate that into a quantity of some other unit. For example; we know there is 240 “mansheight” on a “pilskudd”, this is old norse length measures, but we don't know how this relates to meter in the SI-system. Current guesses is 200–500 m. A little warning; some Wikipedias has articles about old measures for old length, area, volume, and weight that is wildly speculative in both value and precision. Those values are imported to Wikidata, and should be reviewed. Jeblad (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Use of precision can have some really weird consequences, like the definitions used by the law Lov om metrisk Maal og Vægt (1875) [8] in Norway. This defines a “tomme” (“inch”) as 26 mm,(page 19) and then goes on to define a “kvadrattomme” (“square inc”) as 7 cm² (actually 6.76 cm²). The original definitions are somewhat better. ;) Jeblad (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The current approach works mainly for units that convert to SI. It relies on a separate items being used for units that have the same name but a different conversion.
Temperatures are currently not supported (phab:T174353, a query to convert between °F and °C is at Property_talk:P6591#Query with °F/°C conversion).
There is a request at phab:T228645 to use the same for % and ‰. A similar approach could be used for some historic units, but I wonder if we have that many measures that could use conversion. --- Jura 07:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding data of a business person


I want to add relevant data about Jason Washington. I have got all the reference/citation links about each information. Please let me know how to start.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldenLannister (talk • contribs) at 20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC).

@GoldenLannister: Please see: Wikidata:Tours. But check also Wikidata:Notability to make sure at least one of the criteria for inclusion are met. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

SourceMD bot re-launch

I am about to re-launch SourceMD bot today.

The updated version has bug fixes, new features, and new tests, but there may be issues cropping up. If you see an issue (starting today), please add it to

Thanks! --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Mayor redux

I can't find the previous discussion decided a few weeks ago. There are two ways we can represent, lets say, a mayor of a locality. We can create a specific "position=Mayor of X" like we have for state governors. This is useful if there are multiple mayors to be added. We also use a generic "position=Mayor" then qualify it with ... what was the final discussion on what field to use for adding in the locality? Was it "located in the administrative territorial" or was it something else like "of="? We use this if we only have one to add. --RAN (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion was at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/08#University_presidents. I personally am in favor of the simpler mayor (Q30185) of (P642) City Name, placed in position held (P39) rather than occupation (P106) (which should be a more inclusive, enduring profession such as "politician") as mayoral stints are often short spells within broader careers, not occupations in themselves. The alternative is to create a distinct item for every single city/town/municipality on Earth that has ever had a mayor (and ditto for vice mayor, city council member, ombudsman, etc.), which seems like needless busywork that doesn't improve clarity. -Animalparty (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that the solution as Animalparty prefers is good. I asked a question like this in the German WikidataForum. But using qualifiers in queries is not possible without a knowledge in SPARQL. So there should be a solution to make it easier to query qualifiers. If somebody with a knowledge of the QueryService knows a solution it were great if the one could tell how it could work or develope a tool for it. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't agree. If (and only if...) there exists an item about a given mayor position, I see no reason not to use it... Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

"To create a distinct item for every single city/town/municipality on Earth that has ever had a mayor": that was just done for French towns. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC).

Defining birth place original name

When we are talknign about place of birth (P19), we can define the country in which this "place of birth" was at that time (if it's in different than the current country) by adding qualifier country (P17). How about if this place had different name at that time? How can we define that, so we can use that value in Wikipedia Infoboxes? --StanProg (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In the place's item You should use official name (P1448) with qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582). See, for example, Saint Petersburg (Q656). And using country (P17) as a qualifier in personality's item is not a good solution. Better use this property in the place's item with the same qualifiers. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Be aware, that official name (P1448) is only for official names; I highly doubt that Saint Petersburg (Q656) ever had had an official name in Hungarian, Spanish or Armenian (while the Wikidata item claims it did…). IMHO the unofficial translations of official names should be added as qualifiers of the respective statements, not as separate statements.
Also, there is already in the proposal discussion an unanswered question of spelling: E.g. Saint Petersburg (Q656) was spelled Санктъ-Петербургъ at the begining of 20th century, not Санкт-Петербург as it is today.
And finally, not only the name changes with time, also the area does. Hence people born in the area of today's Saint Petersburg (Q656) in early 1920s shouldn't claime to have been born in Петроград, if their place of birth was not part of the city at that time.--Shlomo (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
"I highly doubt that Q656 ever had had an official name in Hungarian, Spanish or Armenian..." I've resolved that by moving the relevant values to literal translation (P2441). Each save took a very long time! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
unless "sankt" is Romanian or Hungarian for "saint", the ones in those languages are in no way literal translations. They're transliterations. Circeus (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
If the official name is in Russian, the literal translation should be made from the Russian word “санкт”, not from the English “saint”. But “санкт” is not a Russian word, neither is “Петер” nor “бург”; actually, the Russian (official) name is already a Russian transcription of a (probably) German word/phrase, so that a Hungarian or Romanian transcription of this German phrase is a perfect literal translation of the Russian name.--Shlomo (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
See also stated as (P1932). Circeus (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. I also looked at stated as (P1932), but I think this is not suitable for our case, since it's not multilingual. --StanProg (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Occidental Mindoro New Website

Good Day!

May we wish to update the domain name address of Occidental Mindoro from to

Thank you & Have a Blessed Day!

Frank John Iniego admin

Occidental Mindoro (Q13867) official website (P856) is now updated. --Bluemask (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification regarding purpose of afflicts (P689)

The description of afflicts (P689) is currently "type of organism which a condition or disease afflicts" but there is also an example where the value of this property is an organ (i.e. liver cirrhosis (Q147778) afflicts (P689) liver (Q9368)) - can we change the description to include "part of organism" (e.g. "type of or part of organism which a condition or disease afflicts")? I tried to do this but it was reverted as someone saw it as vandalism / disrupting behavior.

More examples where afflicts is not an organism but a part of an organism:

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the liver example was leftover by accident when the property was being discussed. You can clearly see in the discussion that the property at first included no provision for organs, then it did, then a different property was proposed by another user. Clearly that property didn't make it through for some reason (but I can't find a trace of that proposal). Actually changing the scope of a property, I've found, is like talking to a wall on here (don't even get me started about changing a property name). I think it's more sensible to accept defeat, delete the liver cirrhosis example and head over to WD:PP to make a proposal. Worse come to worse it'll be voted down with prejudice because "afflicts (P689) already exists", and then no one can argue against your changes. Circeus (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: Just to note again these and many more use it similarly to liver cirrhosis (Q147778): sodium cyanide exposure (Q21175308), Trinitrotoluene exposure (Q21175396), rheumatoid arthritis (Q187255). Thank you though for input and advice and I will proceed as you suggest. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Importing names & aliases from Wikipedia


I'm particularly interested in Norwegian Wikidata entities. There are a lot of aliases missing from a lot of entries, and I had an idea about supplementing them that might also be valid for other languages. What about going through all Norwegian Wikipedia articles, finding all links, grabbing the text from those links, and adding them as aliases to the article -> entity being pointed to? For Norwegian, some heuristics could be added. If the entity being pointed to has a name which is capitalized, it should be considered a proper noun, and thus the text within the link should also be capitalized. This rule will of course not work for e.g. German.

Here is a valid example:

In the Norwegian article about Albert Einstein, there is a link "Keiser Wilhelm-instituttet for fysikk", which points to The corresponding Wikidata entity, "Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft", does not have the Norwegian alias "Keiser Wilhelm-instituttet for fysikk".

I' not sure it will be 100% fool proof, but I think it will be pretty good.

I'm able to extract this data myself (e.g. JSON), but unsure how to feed it into Wikidata.

Kind regards, Emil

If you are sure your aliases are good, and you have the QId of the item, then quickstatements provides a method for adding aliases. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Something like this is being done regularly from one or several Asian language Wikipedias. Interestingly it also yields labels in Latin script languages (e.g. for items about Europeans with articles in these languages, but not elsewhere). As far as I can tell, the Latin script part works quite well and I'm not aware of complaints about the others. Maybe you could adapt the code for nowiki. I try to recall the name of the bot .. --- Jura 10:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Be aware - when a Wikipedia article discusses a class of objects (say "Chinese porcelain") there will often be many redirects that represent the types of Chinese porcelain that are discussed in the article. In Wikidata, each of these types should be (and may already be) a subclass of "Chinese porcelain". In these cases, where the redirects have been added as aliases to the main article, those aliases all have to be removed. I do this sort of work a lot. So please be careful that the redirects don't represent subtypes of the main topic. Thanks. - PKM (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Properties, right use and moving values

Hey, I wonder how Wikidata works. Does everybody know, what properties and qualifiers use and when? Sometimes people propose new properties and there is a discussion, that such a case may be handled by already existing property. So I wonder how accurate Wikidata are?

This takes me to another question. If a more specific property is approved, those it means that data/values will be moved from general property to this specific one? --Juandev (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProjects typically document the properties (and qualifiers etc) used in various different domains. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There are many different types of properties and identifiers. Some identifiers are used to link items to movie databases, some are used to link items to online newspaper topics while others are used to link humans and organizations to their respective social network profiles. --Trade (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)