Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2020/01

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Добавьте . Алёна Пескова (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. You can write sush messages at project chat in Russian. (Вы можете оставлять подобные сообщения на русскоязычном форуме Викиданных, если это будет Вам более удобно. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2020 (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. Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Quarry query to get edits made by an user

Hi all,

I'd like to take the liberty of bringing up a subject I addressed on the Request a query page. I would like to have the list of items (subclasses of place of worship (Q1370598) in France (Q142)) for which the user Peter17-Bot add the property coordinate location (P625) (e.g.

Tagishsimon proposed to use Quarry, but he didn't know exactly how to do, just like me. However, he found a Quarry query not very dissimilar.

So if anyone knows how to do that, it will be very helpful! I think it's a case that we will see less and less, with the usage of EditGroups.

Thank you, Tubezlob (🙋) 10:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC) (and happy new year! 🎆)

This section was archived on a request by Tubezlob (🙋) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC) I did the work manually, after discussion on the Request a query page

Copy statement types between articles

Hi! I started editing Wikidata items manually yesterday (I'm quite active on English Wikipedia, making mostly small edits for grammar, HTTPS, references, etc.) and have a question: is there any way I can do stuff faster? I've made in a few new items from pages in the category wikipedia:Category:Articles without Wikidata item, and it feels really slow. There are many statements that should have a value for basically ever member of a group; for example, all water polo players should have a country they play for, should probably have a date or year of birth, maybe have a competition they were in, etc. Is there any way to copy a group of statements from one item, then edit the values for another article, maybe a way to copy the source code if that exists? Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@DemonDays64:, check out the WE-Framework gadget --Trade (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Trade: thanks for the tool, though it's not really what I was thinking—I was hoping to do what one could do with copying Wikitext between articles and changing the values on Wikipedia, rather than using a limited structure template. DemonDays64 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@DemonDays64: I haven't used WE-Framework, but there is also moveClaim.js, which allows single claims to be copied or moved to other items. -Animalparty (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Animalparty: oh, that seems useful. Where/how would I install it? It doesn't have instructions. Thanks DemonDays64 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Make a common.js page, like User:Ghouston/common.js. Ghouston (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. This points to a pervasive problem in Wikidata: aspects of it are often maintained by and tailored to people deeply immersed in coding, scripting, and programming, and often poses a high entry barrier to users who don't speak robot. @DemonDays64: To use moveClaim.js, create the page User:DemonDays64/common.js, then add the text importScript( 'User:Matěj Suchánek/moveClaim.js' ); to the first line. Other tools and gadgets can be activated by your Preferences, or found at Wikidata:Tools. Structurally, Wikdata is still in its infancy. Happy New Year! -Animalparty (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2020 (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. Ghouston (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

single best value constraint

Arsos, Larnaca (Q56448937). At property population (P1082) there is "single best value constraint".

"This property should contain a single “best” value with the same determination method qualifier. Of the current multiple values, one should be marked with “preferred” rank."

But, due to political issue of Cyprus (Cyprus dispute (Q245831)), there is not census after 1973. And is useless to add as best value the 1973 census. Maybe North Cyprus made a census but no data added to Arsos, Larnaca (Q56448937) or to Arsos, Larnaca (Q4796610). Xaris333 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

sounds like a good case for marking the item as “exception to constraint”. - PKM (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
But there are almost 200 items with the same issue. Xaris333 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by no best value? Are there multiple estimates and there's no way to decide which is better? Ghouston (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
By "best" we can just mean most recent, so on Arsos, Larnaca (Q56448937) the best is 1973. Ghouston (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
But that has no sense. We are almost in 2020 and the best value is 1973? And there was a war in 1974. The population of that areas left. Xaris333 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It may not be a good value, but it is still the best one we have. Circeus (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Can Q26449717 and Q15621234 - both for family name Arai - be merged ?

Hi, Q26449717 and Q15621234 appear to be for the same item (= Japanese family name Arai), with both of them being assigned as Property:P734 in Q609469 for example, and thus creating a Defaultsort-conflict on Commons (c:Category:Akino Arai).
But as my knowledge of Japanese language is somewhat limited, I might be missing an aspect that requires this to be two independent Q-items.
I would be grateful to get suitable input from people with more insight & knowledge whether these two Q-items indeed can be merged, or not.
Carrying out the merge-operation itself will be no problem for me to do.
-Archie02 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Both of them are not same item. One is written in Hiragana and the other is written in Kanji. --Afaz (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
If you use "Arai"(Q15621234) or "あらい" (hiragana), this includes "荒井"clan and "新井" clan and "新居" clan and "相良" clan. if you use "新居"(Q26449717), this means only "新居" clan. thanks--Afaz (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. In the sinosphere's context, this is the same reason we have separate items for McNeil (Q16876719), McNeill (Q4275864) and MacNeil (Q21452079). These are essentially names with distinct spellings. Circeus (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct qualifier for P4724

Maitron ID (P4724) is a combined directory of biographical entries across multiple encyclopedias (e.g., women, Africans, anarchists; see website [under "dictionnaires"], each published as separate volumes). I'd like to add entry's associated encyclopedia on WD as a qualifier to the P4724 property for easier lookup, but what would be the correct qualifier to use? described by source (P1343) throws an error when used as a qualifier on the property. czar 01:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like something that would be better done as a refernece using stated in (P248). As a qualifier, statement is subject of (P805) is perhaps the next best thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fix request

Please go to Europe (Q46) and correct eurpei to europei (masculine plural of Italian) on denomyn section. Thanks! -- 12:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@ ✓ Done! DemonDays64 | Talk to me 15:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you edit statements on mobile?

Hi! I’m on an iPhone, using Safari (advanced mode on). At the top of each item, there’s a little edit button, but that only allows editing the description, aliases, and name of the item. How can I edit the actual statements on a mobile browser without switching to desktop view? DemonDays64 | Talk to me 05:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you can at the moment because the desktop interface doesn't translate very well to mobile. More information is available on this issue on Phabricator (the bug tracking software for Wikimedia projects): T95878. Husky (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Husky: dang, that sucks :-/. Thanks for the reply, though! DemonDays64 | Talk to me 01:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Britannica does not have an article

Related talk: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/11#Encyclopædia_Britannica's_'empty-ish'_concepts_in_Mix'n'Match

Currently, we have a problem with Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) property which is used in Wikpedia projects. The case is the following. Articles in Wikipedia use P1417 as source to a topic of considered article and provide link with URL to Britannica. Readers click to the link with expection to find an article on particular topic but they found a message like Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic. It leads to user complains: readers consider Wikipedia as a project with less quality, Wikipedia editors start to think that Wikidata is less reliable source.

The problem is known, and as I see (link to talk above), some guys already tried to resolve the problem in the same way.

I tried to start to solve the problem via bot processing to mark no-article links as deprecated. As a result, Wikipedia stopped to capture such links and readers do not see no-article links. However, GZWDer stopped my activity because it may be controversial and s/he does not support it. The question is, how we are going to solve the problem? I see two scenarios here: 1) We mark no-article links somehow (example, as deprecated) and Wikipedia stops to use that. Readers become less unhappy, we keep more links via Wikidata in Wikipedia, editors consider wikidata as more reliable source. 2) We do not change anything in Wikidata, we exclude all of P1417 links from Wikipedia articles, readers loose links to Britannica, editors consider wikidata as less reliable source.

Which path will we choose? Bsivko (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. One anecdote: When I was trying to determine the precise meaning of some Wikidata item (in the science context) - to add a described by source (P1343) statement - I read some Wikipedia pages and clicked some external ID links to check whether they all are about exactly the same concept. But on said encyclopedia I found no identifying information. So I felt like removing this link (but did not do it). End of anecdote. In the discussion linked above support for keeping such links is justified with 1) the property storing identifiers and 2) an analogy to thesauri. About 1: What's the point of an identifier if it has no associated metadata? Just imagine a Wikidata item without labels, descriptions, statements, or any wiki links. About 2: Thesauri usually list synonyms and therefore help in understanding what a term is about. I'm not sure I would call a random list of words a thesaurus. Therefore I think that a) those values being identifiers is questionable and b) could even be considered spam. So, I tend to think that those values should be dealt with (deprecation or removal). Toni 001 (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In 2016 this was discussed. In my opinion I propose to tag them with a new property, see Wikidata:Property proposal/type of external page.--GZWDer (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Not to argue, but to present some contrasting opinions:
  • If I click on such a link, I do not have an "expectation to find an article on a particular topic" -- I expect to find their page on the same concept. If it's a "directory" page rather than an "article", that's perfectly fine, as long as it's the identical concept.
  • I don't in any way see this as a reason to "consider Wikipedia as a project with less quality" or "think that Wikidata is a less reliable source". We have an article and they don't -- if anything this means we're more comprehensive / higher quality / more reliable! —Scs (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We can think anything, but in practice, readers complain. Bsivko (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Shipibo language code

Hi, I was trying to introduce the statement name in native language for Guillermo Arévalo Valera (Q4068966). I couldn't as Shipibo-Conibo (Q2671988) is right now not a Wikimedia language code (P424). Shipibo-Conibo is the 5th most spoken language in Peru. Is this something that can be resolved fast? ISO 639-3 (Q845956) for Shipibo-Conibo is shp. Thanks in advance for the answer. --Cbrescia (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

IIRC that's handled on the side of mediawikiwiki:, not WikiMedia. Presumably you only have to create a Phabricator: ticket and wait for the next MediaWiki version offering shp. Or ask for help on metawiki:, they have i18n experts. 8000 speakers might be not enough for the purposes of MediaWiki.
Apparently Shipibo-Conibo (Q2671988) isn't known on enwiki, DAB w:en:shp doesn't mention it, and the IETF language tag (P305) reference here sucks, it should be the IANA registry. – 15:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter #2

WikiProject India bars.svg

Hi Project chat/Archive/2020,

Happy New Year for those who are living in UTC+05:30 (Q6828) (in advance or belated for the rest!). You are receiving this message as you are one of the participants of WikiProject India on Wikidata and/or a subscriber of the Wikidata India newsletter. You can find our second issue of the quarterly newsletter here, where you can get a quick overview of the Wikidata activities related to India over the last 3 months. If you do not want to receive this kind of notification further, you can remove your username from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
(on behalf of WikiProject India on Wikidata.)

I think it would make more sense to add this to the weekly summary then to add it as it's own topic for the project chat for future editions. ChristianKl❫ 08:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 Resolved by ChristianKl, thanks. – 16:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Europeana <-> WD connected. Next step create Wiki templates in more languages

I have connected 160 000 WD objects Europeana entity (P7704) with en:Europeana now we need Wiki templates in more languages. We have it up running on sv:Wikipedia as Mall:Europeana / usage and I did a test on en:Wikipedia see link If you think en:Europeana adds value to Wikipedia dont hesitate to add a template in "your wiki"

  • Task T241677 about creating more Wiki templates
  • Task T240290 connecting WD with Europeana

- Salgo60 (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What to put when I know someone was born in Germany, but not which Germany?

I'm trying to edit in a place of birth for Q80683451. According to this source (ctrl F for "Kirchner, Otto), he was born in Germany in 1846. However, I can't figure out how to enter that without error; Germany was not one thing in 1846, so I don't know if he was born in the Wikipedia:German Confederation or whatever, and even if he was, what part (a necessary field) he was born in. Please help! Thanks. DemonDays64 | Talk to me 20:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: According to [1] he was born in Frankfurt (Oder) (Q4024), which thus was in Kingdom of Prussia (Q27306) at time of his birth. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Restoring incorrectly resolved redirects

Someone merged member of the Swedish Riksdag (Q10655178) into member of the Folketing (Q12311817), which was incorrect and I have restored it now. Unfortunately User:KrBot "resolved" all those redirects before that, so now all Swedish MPs have been turned into Danish MPs. This also affected all other links to Q10655178, including elections and the speaker of the house. As this concerns hundreds of items, could someone restore them in an automated fashion? Väsk (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the bot's operator, @User:Ivan A. Krestinin:, does this when required. Ghouston (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a VERY bad idea to modify the links poiting to the redirect exact for this reason - especially if it is done just few hours after the wrong merge. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirects need to be resolved at some point as results were otherwise missing in queries. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Property for "shut down", as in a website?

Dot Earth (Q5299386) is about a blog that shut down a few years ago. What property is appropriate for a website's time of shutting down, as an opposite of inception (P571)? I can't find one under "shut down" or something similar. Thanks! DemonDays64 | Talk to me 04:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

There is dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576), but I'm not sure if the blog counts as "shut down" or not. It stopped receiving updates, but is still online. If it was a book, we'd say it was still in publication. Ghouston (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
How about using significant event (P793) as in [2]. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Find a list of subproperties of a property

In my quest to find the equivalent of inception (P571), a subproperty of start time (P580), I tried to find the subproperties of end time (P582) to see if one of those would be appropriate as an answer to Wikidata:Project chat#Property for "shut down", as in a website?; however, I cannot figure out how to do this. How can I find all subproperties of a given property? Thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by DemonDays64 (talk • contribs) at 04:20, 3 January 2020‎ (UTC).

I'm no SPARQL expert, but something like:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel 
  ?item wdt:P1647 wd:P582.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

(although that won't do recursion if any of these have subproperties of their own.) - Jmabel (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the return of that, date of the latest one (P7125) may be what you want. - Jmabel (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

János Bobula (needs help from hungarian speaker)

items Q832773 and Q832771 seem to have some data that crosses each other. But because most the information is in a foreign language, I don't want to risk doing it on my own. I was hoping someone (who speaks Hungarian) could look and fix the two items (and their commons and wp articles). They may even be father and son. So, you know, adding that kind of data to their items would be great. Quakewoody (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

2020-01 split

Should Islamic court (Q3538915) be split into disambiguation page and court sub-class? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Plural of units


in the last time when I read the properties and the values of items I have seen that if the property has a value like year or a weight then in some languages it is another form of the unit if it is one as if it is more than one. For example at a age in years. As far as I know after I have asked it a few weeks agos are the units items. Are there ways to show the correct form of a unit. This is something what were also interesting for persons. I think in German and also in other languages there are differnt names of the same occupation for man and woman and if you could show there the more correct one that were great. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It really bothers me when duration (P2047) tells me that a song lasts 220 Second and etc. Hope there's a way to correct that. --Trade (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • This task is basically about choosing the right lexeme to represent a unit. It's possible to implement this properly but it likely takes some work and there are many areas in Wikidata that take work. ChristianKl❫ 12:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

And genetive case (5 минут, neither "5 минуты" nor "5 минута"), and paucal (Q489410) for a small amounts (5 килограммов, but 2 килограмма)! So it's not a single Lexeme to choose, ChristianKl... --Infovarius (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • As Infovarius above, many languages have more than two cases (singular/plural). E.g. Russian and Polish are similar, but there may be languages having more nuances. Wostr (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You basically have to look up the noun that has "subject item" for the unit in the language that you care about, then chose the form of the lexeme based on the grammatical features at which you are looking in the particular case. ChristianKl❫ 16:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured portal in en wiki

In en wiki the featured portal process has been discontinued. en:WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC_about_marking_the_Featured_portals_process_as_.22historical.22.

How could wikidata remove featured portal Badge from interwiki links?Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Guilherme Burn There are 121 items marked as featured portals on enwiki - it should be straightforward to just run a bot to remove them all.
Looking at the discussion there, there was a suggestion for some kind of "not quite featured" badge, and the portals do still seem to be tagged in some way - eg the hollow star at w:Portal:American Civil War. We could replace the badges with a more specific one to reflect this. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Assistance on Merging

I recently found that both Q18841134 and Q14934146 are all about the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and I wish to merge the former item to the later item. Can anyone assist on this? I am not familiar with here so I appreciate any assistance for this.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sparql query for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131): broad/narrow

Hello all. In this query listing organizations in the US, how to return a column for US states (not towns)? For example, an organization in Albany, New York, would show up in the query results as "New York" (not "Albany"). How to do this? Suggestions welcome. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@M2545: This, I think. Note also Wikidata:Request a query ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: T h a n k s. Much appreciated! -- M2545 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not included if the property in using as reference property

Hello. title (P1476) has single value constraint (Q19474404). At property talk page there is "List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1476#Single value, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)". But I think these lists not include results that the property is used for reference. Xaris333 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User warnings

Are you doing something like {{uw-disruptive1}} on IP talk pages more than one week after the fact? – 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There are no strict rules on this, WD:Vandalism page just says that "warnings can be left". And since we don't have tools like Twinkle, the task appears to be tedious and is usually neglected, unless the vandal is really restless. IMHO, there's no much point placing such warnings for incidents older than several days, chances are that the situation will not recur. If it does, there are still evidences of the past and still the appropriate measures can be taken. (It would be great if we had a more developed system like that of enwiki, but that would require some level of automatization). — Mike Novikoff 21:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
^.^b The enwiki system isn't perfect, some substituted templates have to be manually fixed if an IP uses them. – 09:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Need an expert on Swedish parishes

Are Anundsjö parish (Q2857809) and Anundsjö parish (Q16496957) labeled properly as to which is the contemporary parish and which is the historic parish that was split/joined. --RAN (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Link to subsection

Hello. The Q10517184 correctly directs to articles in Portuguese, French and Swedish. However, it links to a disambiguation page in English. Is there a way to link a Q-code to a subsection of an article? Instead of linking to en:Show of hands, it should link to en:Voting methods in deliberative assemblies#Show of hands. Thanks. Mateussf (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Someone else fixed it. Now it links to a redirect, so it works perfectly. Thanks. Mateussf (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Pico da Neblina

Hola. En el "pico da Neblina" en la declaración "situado en la entidad territorial administrativa" correctamente se recoge "Amazonas" (estado de Brasil). Sin embargo, cuando la Ficha de Montaña de la Wiki española extrae el dato aparece "Amazonas (Colombia)". No logró dar con la solución. Gracias y un saludo. --Urdangaray (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this still an issue? / O problema ainda existe? Mateussf (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Error in replyto template: Username not given. See Template:Replyto for usage. Doesn't look so to me. - Jmabel (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Has part

Hello. If a administrative territorial entity is divided to sup-administrative territorial entities, on the entity we are using located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Should we also use has part (P527)? For example, Paphos District (Q59133). I have added both properties, not sure if the second is necessary. Xaris333 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

For ATEs, contains administrative territorial entity (P150) is the appropriate property, not P527. --Yair rand (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright on a list of formulas?

Hi. In the context of defining formula (P2534) I've been wondering about the following question: How many of the formulas of a reference work can be entered into Wikidata, and under which conditions? As an example, see the defining formula of the magnetic flux density. The formula itself is simple enough to not fall under copyright (at least that's what I understood from reading about copyright pertaining to formulas in Germany and the USA). The formula also has a reference. That reference (a part of ISO/IEC 80000 (Q568496)) consists of tables of (physical) quantities, units and defining formulas. Using a suitable SPARQL query that takes into account the references one can generate a list of all defining formulas - ordered by item number - in that reference. I'm wondering whether the result of this SPARQL query, which very closely reproduces one column of the reference, has any relevance in copyright, say in the context of "copy of a significant fraction of a work" or the European database copyright. One relevant point to consider is that, while in the context of (physical) quantities, as of today, the source mentioned above is the most frequently used (based on a sample of a few hundred items that I've reviewed), in school I learned the formula with exactly those letters (F for force, ...) and in that form, and there are many other sources that could (and hopefully will be) added in the future to exactly those formulas.

From this discussion I wish to understand whether it is safe with respect to copyright to continue adding formulas by systematically looking them up in a reference work. Thanks. Toni 001 (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Results of a SPARQL query can be sorted by the item ID, so it's possible to recreate an ordered sequence (which is subject to database copyright if I understand correctly) only IF 1. items were created in that order, AND IF 2. the created item IDs were increasing (which is a system question I think but usually they are with manually created items). So IMO yes, if you want to avoid problems do the import in a random manner and don't use external IDs which contain the copyrighted order. But I'm no expert. --SCIdude (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation so far.
For the source in question Wikidata already contains most of the quantities; I've been adding a few for completeness and because of a structural need (use in calculated from (P4934) statements). So the Wikidata Q-numbers are indeed in an "arbitrary" order. But then (and that's what I had in mind above), each reference is accompanied by a section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) entry containing the reference's item number ("6-21" in the example above). Ordering by this entry (which requires some SPARQL coding) makes it possible to sort just like the reference. This would then - following your explanation - fall under copyright, correct? If that's the case, would removing the item numbers (and using page numbers instead) solve the problem? Another way out might or might not be to say that the reference contains next to each formula a precise textual description, which is missing in the SPARQL result.
Yet another explanation is that matching the reference's item number to Wikidata's item number is a "creative" process in that in some cases it requires deep knowledge of the subject (say in electromagnetism), discussions with fellow editors, ...; this process creates a link set which might receive copyright protection. This linkset is then released into the public domain by the editors who enter it into Wikidata. Toni 001 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Creating these external IDs that contain the reference's item number in my opinion amounts to an import of that data(base). And the rules for import are clear, see:
I don't know about the procedure if you find copyrighted material on WD. Maybe others can help? --SCIdude (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
On a practical note, I see no use having external IDs that just recreate a specific order. However if you mean external IDs solely used as reference in a reference statement I'm not sure if these touch any database copyright (because that's what the external DB has as interface to the outside). Full import would be if the external database's entities are recreated as items here, with all accmpanying information. Please correctme if I'm wrong. But effectively, why have external IDs other than for reference if the items themselves are open formulas? If you have two external IDs on every formula you just created a mapping between those databases, which might even be own work from curation with you yourself (=WD) the owner. --SCIdude (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful links. About the purpose of the section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) values: Those are included "just" to provide a "good" reference, in the same way that other references might include a page and a paragraph number. But then, they can additionally (by not being random strings - a choice made by the source) be used for sorting: On the one hand I found this useful to compare Wikidata and the source side-by-side, but on the other hand made me wonder about copyright and start this discussion.
The documents linked to above (and articles linked therein) mention "repeated and systematic extraction" of "insubstantial parts of the contents of the database": If I understand that correctly then creating new items and filling out all the data (formulas, symbols, units) for a substantial fraction of entries might be problematic - no matter whether done one by one. However, this is not what happens: Thanks to the many volunteers who have been writing Wikipedia articles since long before Wikidata's birth, followed by the (automatic) creation of Wikidata IDs for each existing Wikipedia article, we already have items for most entries in the source. The first process then is to find out which Wikidata item corresponds to which item in the source; the result of this matching can be stored with a described by source (P1343) statement with section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) qualifier. That's not simply an import, as matching of, say, labels is not reliable; in some cases I spent more than an hour reading about the subject to match one item. Once that is done, I might add the same source (again with item number for completeness) to the formula or even enter the formula from the source, if it did not exist yet.
In summary, looking at each individual class of steps and how the source is used in each step, I don't see any "substantial copying". Toni 001 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct, you are mapping the Wikipedia (database) to that reference which is curation, a creative process that can't be automated. But I would like to hear a more legal opinion on databases that carry open data. --SCIdude (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

How should forms be tagged with grammatical features?

If I have a lexeme, e.g. perro (L34109), that needs four forms: perro (masculine singular), perros (masculine plural), perra (feminine singular), and perras (feminine plural). I don't understand what grammatical features to mark these as having, though; there's ones for masculine/feminine and ones for plural/singular, but there are also single ones for masculine/feminine singular/plural. How should these be used? Should the form perro be tagged as masculine singular and masculine singular? Should it only have the first two? Should it only have the last? Should something be merged? I'm confused. Thanks! DemonDays64 | Talk to me 15:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: Consensus at Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data#Use of combined grammatical features like “second-person plural” (permanent link) was that the combined items should be avoided, and eventually deleted. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary constraint

We have it set up so that we get a contemporary constraint error when a child is born after a parent is dead, we need to allow a child to be born up to nine months (lets make it 10 months) after a father is dead. We have several situations where a soldier inseminates his wife before going off to war, where he dies. Can we do this? --RAN (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget sperm donors and in vitro fertilization. Given that humans have been born from sperm frozen for 40 years, the constraint may need to be relaxed even further, or at least an appropriate qualifier added. -Animalparty (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Surely individual exceptions would be sufficient in this case? Circeus (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #397

Formatting problem with P244 Library of Congress Authority ID

I reported this already on the property talk page, but in case it doesn't get seen there ... It appears that newly created Library of Congress Authority ID numbers are incompatible with the current format regex because they start with 2020 and the regex says that the third digit of the year must be 0-1. So the regex needs to be fixed to be compatible with new and future numbers.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentdivas (talk • contribs) at 17:10, 7 January 2020‎ (UTC).

✓ Done --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar cleanup

Can we get rid of the "Print/export" section of the sidebar? I don't think Wikidata items typically have any use for printing, exporting as PDFs, or being placed in books. Also, the "Cite this page" bit doesn't really seem necessary. Attribution for Wikidata items isn't strictly required, and it's unlikely that anyone's going to use that citation style in the first place. --Yair rand (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "Cite this page" seems quite useful if someone wants to cite wikidata in an academic paper. - Jmabel (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Is it likely that an individual item will be cited? --Yair rand (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
      • There are papers that discuss Wikidata's ontology, so significant classes like Q5 have some likelihood of being cited directly. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • In such situations, the items themselves are the topic of discussion. Is it at all likely that such a paper would make use of Special:CiteThisPage? Is it used sufficiently frequently that it's worth using up a spot in the sidebar for that link? --Yair rand (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Q81105988) Summerperiod

In Q81105988 I have a period where I define the start and enddate. However I cannot find the correct value for summertime period (railways). Are there any examples of timetableperiods?Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC) In Q81105988 I have a period where I define the start and enddate. However I cannot find the correct value for summertime period (railways). Are there any examples of timetableperiods?Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Your valid in period (P1264) idea with value duration (Q2199864) makes no sense for me, it doesn't match what P1264 says. How about using duration (P2047), suggested as "See also" in P1264? Unrelated issue, it was certainly summer (Q1313) in Belgium, but for a railway timetable I'd expect something independent of geography. Admittedly I found nothing remotely related to "Q2+Q3". – 12:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You can test a new feature to highlight mismatched references

Hello all,

As part of our work on data quality, and how we can make sure that data and references match, we have been working on a new notification to notify editors when they are editing values without updating the reference.

Screenshot of the first version of the mismatched reference notification

You can learn more about the feature and give feedback on this page. For now, the feature is deployed on Based on your feedback, we may be able to enable it on in February 2020.

If you have comments or questions, please add them to the dedicated talk page. Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

check my merge?

Hi, I just recently merged a Q for an enwiki disambiguation page with a Q for the thing it was about at Q16659419. Did I do the right thing, or are disambiguation pages supposed to have their own Q #s? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): The latter, I'm afraid. I've reverted your merge. The disambiguation item subject is a disambiguation page pointing (sort of) to an article on the class and to articles on instances of the class, but which is not itself a description of the class. The railway hotel item subject is the class. Thanks for checking it out here, here. General rule; disambiguation items should point to DAB pages and should not seek to be definitions for the class of things that are the subject of the DAB article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Last includes not displayed on Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control due to "template_include_size_is_exceeded"

Hello, the page Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control is currently included in the category Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded, so at the moment the about last 10 proposals are not displayed as include, but rather only the link to the proposal is shown. In addition, they do not show up in the table of contents at the begin of the page. Is there anything that could or should be done about this? (e.g. increasing the include size limit for this page). --M2k~dewiki (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion we need many more users who can create properties (sysops and propertycreators). If you look at [3] the number of people who are allowed to create properties did not change much over the last 4 years but Wikidata has grown considerably during the same period. --Pasleim (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
We do have a slight backlog in Category:Properties_ready_for_creation but it's not much worse than we've often had in the past. Most of those are proposals pretty new (within the last month or so). What we really need I think is for more people to comment on proposals and help decide whether they should go forward! Wikidata:Property_proposal/Overview is a good place to start if you'd like to help - you certainly don't have to be a property creator to help! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Map of the U3A in Portugal

Hello @Tagishsimon:! Would you help me again? I am developing the list of universities of the third age in Portugal [4], but in addition of the list I would like have a map of the country with the several items inserted in it. Is it possible? How can I do that? Thank you, GualdimG (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@GualdimG: Good question. Listeria will not provide a map. I have not found a template/module that takes a wikidata query and renders returned coordinates on a map. So right now all I can think of is pulling the coords out in a report, and using them in Predefinição:Location map+.
Is there a better solution? I'd like to know, too. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Tagishsimon: for the quick answer! I´ll try that, but when you write "pulling the coords out in a report", could be the list of coordinates taken from the List of Wikidata? GualdimG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

P569 greater than P570

The report Wikidata:Database reports/items with P569 greater than P570 will not update manually or automatically, can someone take a peek and see what the problem is? Perhaps the year change caused a problem. --RAN (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates 2020-01-08

  1. Robert Baum : Q57553760 = Q63861459 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Friedrich Haseldorf : Q1439536 = Q64691233 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Stephan von Dorpat : Q55936766 = Q64705846 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Tilman Bredenbach : Q16403265 = Q55088971 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Axel de Vries : Q89411 = Q55236808 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Done by User:Fixer88. --Succu (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


CommonsDelinker (talkcontribslogs)

Redirected files are still working!

If CommonsDelinker cannot do better than this, then I think we can do without this kind of service! Many image-statements have rank, qualifiers and sources. It seems like all of it is lost because of bad programming! Redirects in file-namespace obviously works, CommonsDelinker doesn't! 62 etc (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sextvåetc: Did you try to contact the maintainer of the bot? --Pasleim (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Pasleim: CommonsDelinker is not an ordinary bot. It is operated by the sysops on Commons! 62 etc (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, you got us there, User:Sextvåetc. I guess it's just plain impossible to talk to them. (btw, piping your name to something that is not your name is much less than useful.) -Tagishsimon (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/12#CommonsDelinker and legend. Ghouston (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
It's quite understandable that bugs like get ignored. If people feel the need to be rude and aggressive in reporting bugs, don't expect the developers to invest time in solving the problem. Multichill (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate item

It is possible to duplicate item for change only the label? For example, Canon BJ-200EX (Q81386668) and Canon BJC-70 (Q81643514) have the same values, only the printer name is different. I could've to duplicate items for create item for Canon BJ-200 (not 200EX) and change only the printer name, instead to create item from scratch? --2001:B07:6442:8903:9C02:13D4:6DFE:9DD1 16:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Help:Split_an_item. --SCIdude (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but it is a little bit complicated. I will create new items from scratch... Thanks again! -- 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I you have an account, you can make a common.js file like User:Ghouston/common.js and import the script User:Magnus_Manske/duplicate_item.js. This adds a "Duplicate this item" entry in the sidebar. Ghouston (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there documentation for how to create Wikidata Tours?

Hi all

I'm planning on writing more Wikidata:Tours however I can't find any instructions for how to create them. Do these exist? If not I could create it if someone could talk me through it. My main questions so far are:

  • What are the steps to create a tour?
  • What are the commands that are allowed in tours? There seem to be some comments in the text that do actions e.g <!-- Action - go to the Earth item page on testwikidata --> but I can't find a list of them

@Thepwnco: and @Bene*: who worked on the existing tours, also @Lea Lacroix (WMDE):, @Daniel Mietchen:, @Multichill:, @Pigsonthewing: and @Spinster: who are subscribed to the Tours Phabricator tasks.


--John Cummings (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

All our tours are based on a Javascript file written by Bene*. Thanks to this file, a tour can be created with two pages:
  1. A normal wiki page where all texts are stored, e.g. testwikidata:Wikidata:Tours/References
  2. A javascript file where all steps are defined, e.g. testwikidata:MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-wbreferences.js. Here you need to define how the item page should look at start and to which html objects the texts will be attached to.
Everything in <!-- and --> are html comments and do not have any other purpose. If you write the texts for a tour I can help you out with the javascript. --Pasleim (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Further docs (but possibly outdated or incomplete) are at mw:Extension:GuidedTour and mw:Extension:GuidedTour/Write an on-wiki tour.
Also note that because it requires creating (and probably editing!) a page in the Mediawiki: namespace, you'll need to coordinate with an interface admin (the only people who can edit that namespace). (See also, list of test.wikidata interface admins). HTH. Quiddity (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Quiddity: and @Pasleim:, a couple of questions:
  • The javascript file and the page in the Mediawiki namespace, are these the same thing?
  • Does someone have to use test Wikidata? This seems like it would complicate things significantly
  • How can you create a button on the Wikidata:Tours page, it seems like its not just a link to a page.
Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: :) 1) Yes. 2) Not necessary, but if you want to be able to edit a tour yourself easily whilst configuring it, that's the easiest place to do so. I.e. You might be able to request temporary IA (interface admin) user-rights on that wiki (note it's one of the most restricted usergroups, because it gives the ability to inject js on everyone's machine). However it's probably best just to work with Pasleim per their offer above. 3) it's just using the template {{StartTour}} to create a link in a blue box; a manually written link would work the same. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibility of automatic updating/adding of dutch municipality data


Is there a way to automatically add new data to dutch municipalities in the future? For example population numbers for 2020 or 2021. The source would most likely be The site has an API and updates automatically ( link with some info).

There is also the problem of new municipalities emerging in the future, as they will have to be matched again or created as an entity. any idea how this could be handled?

Thanks for your time! Antoni1626 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Antoni1626:. It seems quite possible to write a bot that would do a task like that. I actually did a couple of things with the CBS data and Dutch municipalities. You could even do simple edits without a bot using a tool like QuickStatements. Fortunately matching the CBS data with Wikidata items is easy because they all have the CBS codes as a statement. Let me know if you need some help. Husky (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Complete list of PMIDs

Is there a way to get a complete list of items with PubMed ID (P698)? If I use a regular query it times out. --Cavernia (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There are over 26 million items that have that property, and I don't think the query service can handle that many items in a single query. Your best option is probably using the database dumps. Vahurzpu (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you should try your luck at Wikidata:Contact the development team. --Succu (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a better tool to fetch such data. It will take about 15-30 hours to complete a list.--GZWDer (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We have linked data fragments for this. Multichill (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Research topic?

On the one hand I understand why an "ordinary" query for this sort of thing times out and can't work.
But on the other hand I don't see anything wrong with someone trying to run such a query: though somewhat extreme, it seems to me precisely the sort of thing Wikidata is for.
(Me, I've got some similarly too-big, "impossible" queries I've been trying to figure out how best to run.)

Is it reasonable to contemplate the existence of a hypothetical, better way to perform queries like this, that's both convenient and efficient? (And that doesn't kill the servers.) It might require a new form of query, it might require some new database indices, it might require cooperation from the user, but it seems to me worth thinking about.

Vahurzpu mentioned database dumps, but those are too big to be reasonably downloaded and worked with these days, I think.

GZWDer mentioned WDumper, but suggested it might take 15-30 hours, and that seems like a long time. (Or perhaps 250-500 results/sec is a perfectly reasonable performance rate to expect; I truly don't know.)

One idea I had -- although, again, I have no idea if this is reasonable or feasible -- would be to break a "huge" query up by using a LIMIT clause, and then run the query multiple time with some kind of a START_AT clause, and with some kind of back-end support so that the database engine is not having to run the whole query each time and subsample the results. —Scs (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if you're doing Big Data research you'll have a big-RAM (>=32 GB) machine as a prerequisite and know that there are several ways of working with knowledge bases that are faster locally than what you get from the query server (even the query server uses suboptimal libraries as I understand it). Also if you're doing real research you know that there might come up additional questions, and that makes working on a local copy of WD a must. --SCIdude (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I found a workaround now. --Cavernia (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge 3 items

It seems these 3 items refer to the same institute (Botanical Research Institute):

Is there a recommended method of merging in cases like this one ? Kpjas (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kpjas: if there is no (1) transformations of an organisation (one element would describe the organisation before the transformation, the other after; or something similar), (2) there is no problem of the existence of two articles in one Wikimedia project (e.g. for some reason there would be two articles on the same topic in one Wikimedia project), you just need to merge all the elements into one, which I will do (and clean up the final element). Wostr (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wostr: Thanks for info and the merge. Kpjas (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

World rankings on wikidata?

Hi all! I do a lot of work on cue sports players and tournaments on a couple wikipedias, but it was suggested that wikidata might be a good place for a poor current solution.

Scenario: We have certain infoboxes that currently wright items for a current world ranking across different sports/lists. For example, the en:Template:infobox snooker player uses en:Template:infobox snooker player/rankings to generate the paramter for ranking. It uses a code for the following:

{{#if:{{Infobox snooker player/rankings|{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}}} | {{nowrap|<!-- If template returns rank --> {{Ifnumber | {{Infobox snooker player/rankings|{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}}} | <!-- then returns rank to infobox --> {{Infobox snooker player/rankings|{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}}} | <!-- If template returns name then recall template with new name --> {{Infobox snooker player/rankings| {{Infobox snooker player/rankings|{{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}}} }} }} (as of {{Infobox snooker player/rankings|Date}})}} }}

However, I know we could do this with an instance on Q313507, which then would only need to be updated once for all wikipedias.

Question: Is there a quick way/bot to update each member from similar to en:Template:infobox snooker player/rankings?

Part 2: If so, there are other similar entries on en:Template:infobox pool player which take data from this and this?

I realise this is a lot to ask for, but I was hoping wikidata would be a great fix for this. The issues are that these rankings are quite often updated, so it would need to be something quick to update, not take several hours per update. Thanks for all your help. Lee Vilenski (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there'd be a copyright issue with copying all of the rankings from the website. It seems to be run by a British company. Ghouston (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Playbill external identifiers

The regex for theatrical properties Playbill person ID (P6132), Playbill venue ID (P6113), and Playbill production ID (P5833) seem unnecessarily cumbersome, and can be perhaps streamlined. Ideally, just the numerical portion would be used, assuming the numerical suffixes are still unique within venue/person/production urls. For instance, for Lin-Manuel Miranda (Q1646482) it is much easier to copy, paste, and enter "0000006865" instead of "lin-manuel-miranda-vault-0000006865". Can someone fluent in robot take a look at this, and see if it's possible, and even preferable, to concatenate all existing values to just their numerical suffixes via bot? Would there be any downsides? Thanks, -Animalparty (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It needs to have a working link at least; works, but doesn't. Ghouston (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

category for files created with program X

There is category for pictures taken with camera (P2033). I'm searching for something similary for files created by software X, but wasn't able to find it in the search or in a what links here search for Wikidata property about Wikimedia categories (Q18667213). Is there something like this? (I already checked the usual suspects like GIMP, blender, Inkscape, etc.) --D-Kuru (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be the property I'm after. Looks like an upcoming property proposal --D-Kuru (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I created Wikidata:Property proposal/category for files created with program. If you know that the property actually exists or if you have any comments or want to support you are more than welcome to do so! --D-Kuru (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Why 'former X' is subclass of 'X'?

I have found cases where:

Does this makes sense? IMHO, the condition of subclass of (P279) is not fullfilled: it is not true that all instances of 'former X' are instances of 'X'.

Regards, --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Ayack (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of cases, for example:
--Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because the class is "X", not "current X". Circeus (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The main issue I see with these "former XXX" items is that they are used in P31 statements on geographical or administrative entities while the notion of "former" should only be expressed with date qualifiers, never with "former XXX" items. Ayack (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
All Xs are current Xs. If I was a police officer yesterday, and then I stopped being one, then I'm no longer a police officer; I'm a former police officer and not a police officer. --Yair rand (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The "former X" items are kind of nonsense, but they're convenient tags. "Former X" is taken as just "X", even in cases where qualified by date qualifiers, while allowing cheaper queries than checking the date data directly. Basically pretend that the word "former" isn't there in any statements using the items, and formulate things so that the assumption works. --Yair rand (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, John von Neumann (Q17455) is still described in Wikidata as human, but has a date of death to express the "no longer current" aspect. I'm surprised that nobody has created a class for deceased humans yet. See also Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/04#Classes for defunct entities. Ghouston (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #398

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Could you tell us where we can find some doc on tainted references (in its current design) and how we can test it please? Thanks. Ayack (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ayack: you'll find a short description of the project and how to test it on this page. If there's any kind of information missing, let me know. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Lea Lacroix (WMDE). So this has nothing to do with "signed statements"? Or is it a first iteration? Ayack (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
In short: while doing research about the initial project that was called signed statements, we discovered that the main need for people is to be able to highlight and prevent mismatched references - regardless of the provenance of the source, encrypted or not. That's why we started with this. The original idea of signed statements described in the 2019 roadmap may evolve with time, based on what we learn on the way :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Neue Strategy Liaison für deutsche Sprache

(This text aims to raise awareness for the final phases of the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 in german language)


Anfang 2017 begann, mit Auslaufen der alten Strategie, die Feststellung des Bedarfs und die Entwicklung einer neuen Strategie für die Wikimedia-Bewegung bis 2030. Jetzt, nachdem viele Einzelpersonen und Arbeitsgruppen Vorschläge erarbeitet haben, die immer wieder durch Feedbackrunden überarbeitet wurden, werde ich euch nächste Woche darum bitten, die finalen Vorschläge für die Strategie Wikimedia 2030 durchzuschauen und zu diskutieren. Meine Rolle in dem Prozess, der bis Juni andauert, wird es sein, eure Rückmeldungen zu sammeln und weiterzugeben, Chancen und Risiken sollen aus euren Antworten sprechen. Außerdem bin ich jederzeit für Hinweise und Fragen verfügbar, von „was ist überhaupt eine Strategie“ bis zu „wie wird mich das im Datensammeln und -veröffentlichen beeinflussen“. Jedenfalls freue ich mich schon auf euch und wünsche mir eine fruchtbare Diskussion. Weitere Infos wird es hier sowie auf Meta und Wikipedia:Wikimedia2030 geben. CJackel (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @CJackel (WMF): and welcome to Wikidata! The Wikidata:Project chat is usually an international talk page where discussions take place in English. In order to reach the German-speaking community, I can suggest to add your message to the German-speaking page Wikidata:Forum.
If you need anything regarding community communication on Wikidata, feel free to reach me. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not easy to keep up. Although I have a few hundred edits on Wikidata with my private account, I was not aware of the Forum. Thank you for your advice, Lea Lacroix (WMDE)! Cheers CJackel (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@CJackel (WMF): did you use Wikidata in German or in English? Do you have insight of why it might have been hard for you to be aware of the forum and how it might have come to your awareness easier? ChristianKl❫ 14:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
ChristianKl, I am not totally aware of which language I use. I suppose, both. Mostly fixing interwikis, adding descriptions, pictures or citations. This is more or less not language specific. --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
On top of the page the main language you are using at any given point is listed. There's a bunch of stuff the UI does depending on how that language setting is made. ChristianKl❫ 15:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I never changed anything in the preferences, I am only doing so in Wikipedias and other projects in languages that do not use the Roman alphabet. This is probably why I was not aware of the Forum. Regards --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

From 4 Identifier Properties to 1 Identifier Property

Until December 2019 the Media Art Database (Q54760023) had different identifiers and URIs for different material in their database. There was Media Art Database manga ID (P6369), Media Art Database anime ID (P6368), Media Art Database console games ID (P7117) and Media Art Database author ID (P3231). But they have changed their IDs and the structure of their URIs without redirection. Now there should be only one identifier property for all material. My question is, how should we deal with the old IDs? Is it appropriate to create a new property "Media Art Database ID" and mark the old IDs as deprecated? (In addition, I have got a mapping file for the video game IDs from old to new, but not for the other stuff.) Diggr (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that there are no redirects i don't think it makes much sense to keep the old ID's. I would propose a new property, and once that gets accepted deprecate the old properties and start moving the old id's over to the new ones, deleting the old claims in the process. Husky (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Any chance the old ones are worth keeping in terms of finding things in online archives? - Jmabel (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The standard procedure in Wikidata is to keep old identifiers even when a website goes offline. It seems to me like it would be good to have a help page that describes our procedure. ChristianKl❫ 08:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Added a quick line to Wikidata:Identifiers: Special:Diff/1099321573 (feel free to update/move/etc. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've created a property proposal for the new identifier Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#Media Art Database ID Diggr (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


Those of you who are active on enwp, can take a look at en:Lillehammer Municipality and en:Lillehammer. The first one is connected to an item about a "municipality" and the other is connected to an item about a "municipality in Norway". Even the items tells they said to be the same as (P460)! There is only one municipality with this name in Norway, so ... There is also an item about a populated place with this name! 62 etc (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In most cases, its the Cebuano Wikipedia which causes a duplication - apart from the correct thing that there's a separate item about the settlement and the municipality. One way it could be solved would be to link en:Lillehammer Municipality to Lillehammer (Q101341) and en:Lillehammer to Lillehammer (Q3745117), and change that article slightly to make sure that the municipality is handled in another article. However, as most Wikipedias don't separate the two concepts of settlement and administrative unit, there is one one article, and that is linked to the municipality - so can be confusing the long German article is linked to a three sentence stub in English. BTW: Lillehammer might be a rather prominent example, but only in Germany there are still 2000+ real duplicate municipality items [5] I am slowly merging... Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Even in cases where there is only one article, there is often a need to be two items, since the data about the municipality does not match that of the settlement. Not only the population and area differ, also their history. Mark, that can be said when there really is real data about the settlement. In Norway there in most cases is. In most cebwiki/geonames-cases there is not. 62 etc (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Even in the case where there is no exact data on a settlement - like in Germany - there is one perfect reason to split settlement and municipality. In most cases the settlement once established will always be there, maybe growing, maybe even merging into another one. A municipality as a legal entity usually is created much later than the settlement, and it might get merged into a neighboring one at any time, or changing name, or changing its administrative center. Placing all into one item here would require lots of applies to part (P518) qualifiers and become a total mess. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

2020-01 Transnistria

What are the difference between Transnistria (Q3537754), Pridnestrovie (Q907112), Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (Q7242857), Q81644211 ? Involved contributors: @Quakewoody, Pridnestrovian editor: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

These are really different concepts.
The term "Transnistria" is a purely Romanian designation used in two meanings:
  • 1) the occupation regime created on the territory of the modern Odessa region of Ukraine during the Second World War, where genocide of the civilian population was perpetrated;
  • 2) the interfluve of the Dniester and the Southern Bug, it's is the same territory, but here considered not as an occupation regime, but as a region highlighted by the Romanians, which the Turks called Edisan until the 19th century.
Pridnestrovie is:
  • 1) the unrecognized state between Ukraine and Moldova - the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, declaring its independence;
  • 2) the preceding to it Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic - an administrative entity that claimed to become part of the USSR; after the collapse of the USSR, it was transformed into PMR (not as socialist state);
  • 3) the region covering the territory along the Dniester River (and not only the left bank).
When I looked for the already created items, I did not find anything about Pridnestrovie. Only about "Transnistria", which in principle is of little interest to anyone and exists exclusively in the historical context and the context of agressive Romanian nationalism. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It also seemed strange to me that the item "Transnistria" uses the elements related to the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. But, since that item is closed for editing, I considered it most reasonable to engage in the design of the correct record under the correct title than to enter into disputes with moderators about access to edit the record, originally related to Transnistria, and not Pridnestrovie. The difference between these concepts and the confusion in terminology I have explained above. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. If we get rid of any hints of "transnistria" and make a good description of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic instead of what we have now, then I am in favor of deleting the new record. Because it was very strange that I could not find a single WikiData item that would display the name Pridnestrovie. I don’t want instead of the name of Poland to display “Auschwitz” or “Treblinka”. Or "Holocaust firebox" instead of the name of Israel. Moreover, I do not want to see this about Pridnestrovie. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It does seem to me that we should have a distinct item for the term as used during World War II, distinct from the present unrecognized state in all but name and western border. That said, the present unrecognized state is usually referred to in English as "Transnistria", and I think that should remain its item name. I have literally never read anything where a native English speaker referred to it as Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic or anything similar. - Jmabel (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate item for Transnistria (the Romanian occupation district). However, only it should be called that way.
As for the name and the western border, there is nothing in common between Transnistria and Pridnestrovie. The Republic of Pridnestrovie located on both banks of the Dniester river: on the right bank are the city of Bendery and the Kitskansky village council of Slobodzeya district, on the left bank are five more districts. Tiraspol, the capital, today is located on both banks.
The name "Transnistria" appeared in 1992 during the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian war, when the aggressive nationalists who came to power in Moldova needed to somehow name the breakaway state. It was then that they recalled the term of Romanian Nazi criminals, because they could not use the "Russian" name. Then it leaked to the West, because (for obvious reasons) the Western media broadcasted Romanian and Moldovan sources in connection with this war. Literally, this term is translated as “through the Dniester,” “on the other side of the Dniester” - from Romania, of course; it is clear from this that the word has no relation to Pridnestrovie even outside the context of Romanian nationalism.
Over time, this word was almost forgotten: official sources used either "Stînga Nistrului" if it was about the administrative division of Moldova, or "PMR" if it was about the breakaway state itself. In the English language, this region does not have a well-established designation simply because even a fraction of the percentage of native speakers hardly heard about it, and the choice of terminology was dictated solely by context. It received a “new life” with the spread of the Internet and the advent of Wikipedia, which became the main distributor of the term in the Internet environment.
This is the main reason for the confusion and misunderstanding that sometimes leads to conflicts. In the Pridnestrovie, this term, applied as the name of this region, is considered a gross insult and disrespect for the locals and the history of their country (more about this, for example, here: 1234). Therefore, I want to deal with this misunderstanding. I do not think that in English or any other world-class language there is at least one name of the country, which would be an insult to its population. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
We are here not to rewrite history, but to reflect what's in the sources, even if this does not seem right to someone. For some languages there are lists of official names of countries and unrecognised territories – so it's easier to select a name – but for the rest, we should have a name that is used in most of the sources written in that language. BTW there is also Transnistria Governorate (Q167641) that describe the territory during WW2. Wostr (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
That's right, plus we need to remember about the neutral tone of descriptions. Therefore, in this case the only permissible naming must be taken from official sources that established by official legal regulations. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, precedents with the correction of names are here even for unrecognized states: 1. And this despite the fact that Karabakh is a real geographic area, the name of which does not bear any second meaning or offensive tinge, in contrast to the ugly Romanian word “transnistria”. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Official sources from the entity involved are hardly "neutral." - Jmabel (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So this is not an official source, but a news site. The same articles were published on other sites, but on Russian or Romanian. I brought the Pridnestrovian resource only because there is a qualified translation into English. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
If the 'Transnistria' is the most common name in English, it should be a label of an item. Period. Wostr (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In English, the most common name of the subject is "Stînga Nistrului" or "Left bank of the Dniester", as follows from official documents of Moldova. This is natural, given that the main area where English is used in relation to this subject is the issue of resolving the frozen conflict and the diplomatic relations of the participants in the negotiation process, including EU and USA. All the use of "transnistria" comes down to Internet dumps, the source of which is Wikipedia, nothing more. To declare on this basis that the subject under discussion, which almost no one had ever heard of outside of ex-USSR, has some kind of an established designation in the language, it is simply meaningless. A designation may appear only with recognition of the independence of this state and the inclusion of its name in official norms and standards. Now we should be guided by the official documents of the state that is described here, and the self-name of the people, and not engage in promoting biased and offensive terminology. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's clearly you POV that should not be transferred to WD. Only a thorough query of reliable sources (academic books, scientific articles etc.) in English can solve this problem. Wostr (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
My POV? I ask you to argue. And on which subject do you need reliable sources? On the subject of using the word "transnistria" in English? This is already funny. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I can pretty much guarantee that no native English speaker who didn't speak Romanian as well would ever consider "Stînga Nistrului" (or "Stânga Nistrului" if they picked up their Romanian in Romania rather than in Moldova). You would see Transdniestria, Transdniester, and other such variants. For what it's worth: en-wiki, which we usually follow on article names, begins its article Transnistria "Transnistria or Transdniestria, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic"; Britannica opts for Transdniestria and begins their article "Transdniestria, also spelled Transnistria, also called Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Republic and Pridnestrovie"; National Geographic opts for Transnistria. - Jmabel (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The Romanian "Stînga Nistrului" will not be considered, but the Romanian "Transnistria" will be? It's funny. Probably, you did not see the use of the terminology of official Moldova because you are not a diplomat or politician participating in the negotiation process. More English in relation to this region is almost never used. The fact of the matter is that in various sources you can find any names that were called PMR: Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Pridnestria, Pridnestrovia, Pridnestrovie, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, Cisdniestria, etc. Meanwhile, the only name of this state - if we are talking about this particular state, as can be understood from the description of item Pridnestrovie (Q907112) - is defined in its legislation and self-name. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, here are the legislative acts defining the correct name of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic:
Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Cisdniestria (belatedly added in comment above is an almost completely unused term (150-odd Google hits), and "cis" is the opposite of "trans" in Latin, Romanian, and English. It would presumably refer , if used, which it basically isn't, to the (from a Western or Central European point of view) "near" side of the Dniester, which is to say the rest of Moldova. Adding it yourself to Pridnestrovie (Q907112) does not make it otherwise. - Jmabel (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

True, this is an attempt to literally translate the original name of Pridnestrovie. I tried to collect all designation of the PMR and Pridnestrovian land that are found in English sources, except for the nuances of transliteration, such as Dnestr/Dniestr/Dniester/Dnjestr/... About Western Europe: the toponyms is not created in accordance with the geographical location of native speakers of a language. The "reference point" is usually the country or people to which the region belongs. An example here is Ukrainian Transcarpathia: in relation to Europe, this is also not "trans-". In the case of Pridnestrovie, by the way, this is another aspect that makes all names with "trans-" offensive - this is an expression of the claims of Romania from the time of Nazi dictator Antonescu. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Weird sitelink glitch

When clicking on the sitelinks in the article the en sitelink takes you to rather than I tried fixing this in the Wikidata items list of highest paved roads in Europe (Q3834274) and extreme points of Europe (Q2344897) by deleting the sitelinks and putting them back, and by purging the Wikidata pages but no luck. Any idea what is wrong? Abductive (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by ast:Special:Diff/2745627; the astwiki page defined an oldschool-type interwikilink via the ast:Template:VT template. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Why is this VT template still in use? Is it common on other Wikipedias? Abductive (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Abductive: It's a hatnote template, and hatnotes are fairly ubiquitous on most large Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia's version of the template doesn't have this issue, because the Lua module on which it relies automatically prefixes an extra colon at some point. Jc86035 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete (Q82105340)

I accidentaly crested an data-item Q82105340 wich already existed Q47267. Can this data item be removed, to avoid clutter?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: no – the item should be merged into the other one instead. See Help:Merge for how to do it. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
→ ← Merged, please read the help page linked above for future reference. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I on the right track with Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088)?

Hi all! I was just wondering if anyone could take a look at Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088) and give me some pointers before I go too much further with this and potentially add the wrong properties to the other few entities. I think I've pretty much got the hang of the basics but I'm still kind of struggling with the whole subclass thing for some reason. It seems to make sense for a second but then I lose it when I try to apply it to sound recording device (Q66087652). I'm getting warnings with storage device (P4788) and writable file format (P1073) when I use them on instances of it.

I'm not too sure about the first because I thought that subclasses transfer, and because Q50993355 -> Secure Digital card (Q466977) -> memory card (Q183731) -> data storage (Q193395) it should be fine, but I get "Values of storage device statements should be instances of data storage (or of a subclass of it), but SDXC card currently isn't".

The second one, I think that writable file format (P1073) just needs the electronic machine (Q2858615) class added to the value type constraint.

I didn't just want to button mash until something worked though so if anyone has any suggestions, they would be much appreciated! Cheers in advance --Aluxosm (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

They look pretty good, I have a few ideas to improve them a bit which I'll edit directly. Ghouston (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The property writable file format (P1073) is only supposed to be used on software items, not devices. However, I've suggested expanding its usage at Property_talk:P1073#Devices. Ghouston (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ohhh it all makes sense now! You can of course have instances of Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088) and they need to inherit sound recording device (Q66087652). Thank you so much Ghouston (talkcontribslogs) and D-Kuru (talkcontribslogs)! --Aluxosm (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome. Not usre for what, but you are welcome! --D-Kuru (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
D-Kuru (talkcontribslogs) - Haha I thought you'd seen this topic and that's why you made the edits to Zoom H4n Handy Recorder (Q8074152) and Zoom H2 Handy Recorder (Q3576049). I didn't realise that you'd made loads of edits to those items before so they were probably on your Watchlist. Either way, after seeing what you did, and then what Ghouston did with Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088), it all clicked (my confusion with the subclass thing) and I'm very thankful for it ;) --Aluxosm (talk)
@Aluxosm: You can use {{re|USER}} or {{ping|USER}} to not have the "(talk • contribs • logs)" section included.
I did actually neither see this post nor have it the items on my watchlist. I saw your edits on my images on Commons. Then I thought that I might recheck the subclass of and instance of section since I cofused both of them some time ago. But it seems to be all fine and well now. Just need to add that property for writable file formats
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, amazing! Cheers for the heads up on {{re|USER}}, I was just thinking that something like that should exist. --Aluxosm (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Change to regex constraint not being reflected?

A couple of days ago, I changed the format as a regular expression (P1793) constraint on MoEML ID (P6060) (this diff), because the final numeric part of the identifiers can have multiple digits.

But I am still seeing constraint warnings as at Q7308717#P6060, even when such claims were added some time after the constraint was updated. And OpenRefine isn't taking the change on board either, flagging such identifiers as issues before upload.

Can anyone cast any light on what's going on here? Jheald (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This, I think: [7]. Why is it specified in two places? Ghouston (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Been there, tripped over that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating dummy items for easier use

Is there any way to create some kind of dummy item. The purpose would to have a template for a new items that you don't miss anything. I know that you can duplicate an item, but you have to change the values and you have to recheck if there might be a property that would fit for the item that was not included in the copied one. So far I have a list on a userpage where all properties that could fit are listed. If possible I would like to create a virtual item that is filled with all the information you can find and you can publish it when you save it once everything is ready to go --D-Kuru (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

With Cradle it is possible to create forms. In the form you can enter all values and properties needed. It is possible to create new ones in that way. I currently dont know a tool, which helps adding properties with a form to a existing item. I think this were something what would help people editing Wikidata. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. If you have several items with identical statements put the statements in a class and make your items instance of it. The items will inherit the statements. Same with object-oriented programming. --SCIdude (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Hogü-456: Cradle will may help along for now since it looks like that it at least suggests properties.
@SCIdude: The idea is more of itmes with instance of X that you can not really do with a main item. Eg. notable buildings in city X. I don't think that an item with "buildings in city X" is a good idea. For each building you have to enter a bunch of information and they can differ from each other (eg. coordinate location, used by, adress, heritage building ID, architect and so on). You could copy an item, but you would have to change every value.
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have misunderstood your question, sorry. Alternatively (for many items) I would use a spreadsheet for input and create QuickStatement commands from it. --SCIdude (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
From what I can tell from the project page I would say that this is pretty much what I'm looking for, but it seems a bit complicated right now. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Property for item that is listed on a page

You can only link one article from wikipedia to one item. What if a list article contains more than one item? Is there a property like is listed on? --D-Kuru (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There is part of the series (P179) and has list (P2354), but I think we should not lend too much weight to individual Wikipedia articles/lists: some items that are only redirects to lists on English WP have individual articles on other language Wikipedias, and vice versa. Are you asking how to link individual items to Wikidata that only appear on lists? -Animalparty (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
For example Adolphe Thiers (Q5738) is linked with president of the French Republic (Q191954) which in turn is linked with list of Presidents of France (Q29580): there's no need for a direct link between Adolphe Thiers (Q5738) and list of Presidents of France (Q29580). Ghouston (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Animalparty: I have a wikipedia list page and want to link an existing item to that page. Example: I have de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Pressbaum that lists heritage buildings in the area of the city de:Pressbaum. Then there is Q37825991 that is a small entrance tower to the Second Vienna Mountain Spring Pipeline. Is there a way to link this item to the list? There is Cultural heritage monuments in Pressbaum (Q1858294) which is the Wikidata Item for the list on Wikipedia. Maybe with instance of and the list item as item (does not really sound right here)
@Ghouston: With Q37825991 I don't see a link to the list on de.wikipedia
--D-Kuru (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like it's fine as it is. There's no single item for "Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt in Pressbaum", but Q37825991 has heritage designation (P1435) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements which in combination declare the same thing. Ghouston (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories item that don't linked to any Wikipedia category

Hello. Do you thing is useful to create items for categories about geographical items (so the category item will connect with geographical item with topic's main category (P910)), even though there is not yet any Wikipedia category in any language? Xaris333 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, "Category" items exist only as a structural necessity to describe entities in WMF projects; they don't have any notability. - Jmabel (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are two cases where we routinely create such category items: when there is a category in a different Wikimedia project (excluding Commons); and when there is both a Commons category and gallery so that both can be linked to (or there are both topic and list items that link to the same commons category). Just creating category items without any sitelinks isn't particularly useful though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge two items for Easter date calculation?

Computus (Q245003) and computus (Q56318457) appear to be the same. The English Wikipedia article w:Computus was shifted from the former to the later today. Neither Wikidata item has anything on its discussion page. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This items discribe the same thing, so it needs to be merged.--AcademDoctor (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Q245003 is "Computus"; Q56318457 is "calculation of the date of Easter". If they are the same they should be merged to Q245003, as that is the original item, but the French Wikipedia has two articles. Peter James (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The merge fails because there are two different French articles. Q245003 is associated with w:fr:Comput but Q56318457 is associated with w:fr:Calcul de la date de Pâques. I don't read French well enough to know how the linkages should be changed. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: w:fr:Comput ("the calculation of calendar elements used by the Christian churches") appears to be a sort of overview page that discusses both Indiction (Q1339127) and computus (Q56318457), with more attention paid to the latter. It's hard to make a good comparison because the English Wikipedia article is much more detailed (and also because my understanding of French is not particularly good), but both frwiki articles contain information that is also included in w:en:Computus. The ways I could see to model this in Wikidata would be to either keep Q245003 as some sort of parent to the various related topics or to turn it into a disambiguation item. (Some of the statements on Q245003 would need to be changed either way.) Jc86035 (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. w:fr:Comput is a kindalike general article about religious dates calculations/computations (comprised of Easter date, indeed). And w:fr:Calcul de la date de Pâques is a w:fr:Comput technique for Easter. Please note that English word "computer" is derivated from latin computo : to count. Bouzinac (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive URL?

After the change of archive URL (P1065) only a handful of web archives are valid entries. Previously this was used for links to archives of any kind. An archive is where documents are physically stored, and possibly copies are made digitally available. This is not the same as a digital copy of something already available on the web. It is neither the same as an archive item, which more often than not refers to content of an archive box, not the actual document.

I believe this property was intended to be a general property for archive URLs, but is now turned into a property for web archive URLs. There are thousands of archives around the world, but only a handful of real web archives. Trying to maintain a single format regexp will quickly become a nightmare.

Perhaps a better description of the difference is that documents in a real archive is born on paper, while documents in a web archive is born digitally. The online information about a document in a real archive may not contain the document at all, it may only contain metadata about the document.The difference is not just functional, it is physical.

I believe we need a property for deep links into a real archive, which P1065 isn't anymore. Jeblad (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

But from the property proposal, this property was always intended as an URL to an archived version of a web page. Wostr (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want to understand what a property is intended to do, it's useful to look at the property proposal. In this case the description in the proposal is "The URL in the same reference but archived on or some other archive service (," The intention of the property isn't to link to meta data of physical archives. Ideally, we would have a bot that adds an link to every usage of reference url. We currently don't have a bot, but the property was created with that use-case in mind as Enwiki has a bot that actually protects the information in enwiki references that way against link rot.
It's a worthwhile use-case to save data about which libraries actually have physical copies of a document and it might make sense to have a Wikidata property to store that information but it's a different use-case then what archive URL (P1065) was designed to handle. ChristianKl❫ 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Use archives at (P485). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You can expand the regex. --- Jura 08:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation and preferred rank

I believe reason for deprecation (P2241) and reason for preferred rank (P7452) should always be valid qualifiers - that is, they should never cause a constraint violation on any property regardless of that property's list of allowed qualifiers. Do you agree, and is this possible in the software? - PKM (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite annoying to add these properties to the list of allowed qualifiers whenever I want to deprecate/prefer a statement using a property that does not have these qualifiers already added as allowed. Wostr (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Have had the exact same thought before --SilentSpike (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hope it's possible. --SCIdude (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wonder if there are more such "administrative/meta" qualifiers. --Jneubert (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. ChristianKl❫ 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably mapping relation type (P4390) too? --SCIdude (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes! - PKM (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no objection. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have created a new Phabricator task T242797 for this request. I've called it "universally allowed qualifiers". Thanks, all! - PKM (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No objection. The only valid contraint should be that reason for deprecation (P2241) sould have not normal or a prefered rank. --Fralambert (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Sometimes I feel like we could use more freetext explanation properties, like generic comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315), or more specific syntax clarification (P2916). --Jarekt (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't see what that has to do with this topic, but free text doesn't have any structured data to it, so I don't think it belongs on Wikidata. --Yair rand (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amen to that. Moebeus (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes. --Sannita - not just another sysop 21:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support for such a feature. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the samples given above, e.g. VIAF ID (P214) shouldn't have both. BTW, it's fairly simple to add an allowed qualifier to several properties. --- Jura 08:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Correctly representing archaic or debunked "racial" term entries

Entries like Q714773 "Nordic race" are held on Wikidata unqualified, and so are both incorrect and may be open to misuse to promote debunked theories of Nordicism or other race hate-related propaganda. This should be qualified within the entry itself as being historical language which cannot be applied to humans in any logical way. Raising here as this has been a current issue for "racial" categories on Commons, ref c:Commons:Village_pump#Correctly_representing,_but_not_promoting,_"racial_theories"_used_in_Nordicism_and_Nazism. -- (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@: This is an issue with all racial categorizations of people, not just this particular item, so I think this would have to be dealt with by modifying the items higher up in the tree like race (Q3254959). For other items, like homeopathy (Q81058), it makes sense to have some sort of "not valid" distinction on the item, but the issue is applicable to all human racial classifications, so it might not make as much sense to add statements on each individual item. I think you could add a statement to indicate whether the subject of the item is in contemporary use, but I don't know if it would be appropriate to go further than that. Jc86035 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
A core principle of Wikidata is that Wikidata is not the judge of what's the correct description. We rather go with what serious sources say about what someone's ethnicity happens to be then trying to make a judgement of our own about what the ethnicity happens to be and note diagrament when different serious sources disagree. It's worth noting that we do have a higher standard for sources for ethnicity then we have for other properties given that ethnicity is special in the way it can be misused. ChristianKl❫ 19:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You are missing the point. These are not "ethnicity" and this is not a debate about validity or whether Wikidata should be a "judge". You may as well be tagging a record for someone born in India a "wog" or start using a people classification of "teddy bears". These are false "racial" types which have been long debunked, are only ever used by white supremacists, neo-Nazis or other racist extremists, and should never be used to classify people at all. -- (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you lack knowledge of how Wikidata works with race and try to propose policy without understanding the status quo. There are plenty of censi that happened and that do record information about race. I would be surprised if any census exists that classifies people as Teddy bears. On the other hand I would be suprised if no country has historically had a census that classification like "Nordic race". ChristianKl❫ 23:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: That censuses have recorded information about race does not actually demonstrate any scientific basis in the concept. Censuses are not a reliable source for scientific consensus, and we would look at scientific publications to determine whether to classify human racial categorizations as social constructs or biological concepts.
How to actually classify people by their ethnicity or racial identity is an altogether separate issue to how race itself is classified, and I think it would be best resolved by making the constraints of ethnic group (P172) stricter and cleaning up its usage. Jc86035 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether the concept has a scientific basis is irrelvant for the question or not the concept can be used. The claim that Harry Potter is a horcrux doesn't have a scientific basis but it's still information we store in Wikidata because there are sources that describe Harry Potter in that way.
To the extend that there are studies that papers about how a term like "Nordic race" is used in the scientific literature and you want to store that knowledge in Wikidata, feel free to use it for claims on Nordic race (Q714773). Fæ didn't reference any such sources. Correctly, modeling what a paper leads to a different discussion then the one we are having here. ChristianKl❫ 11:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Make race (Q3254959) subclass of "obsolete concept"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. However, all entries like "Nordic race" need to have descriptions which make it clear that they cannot be applied to people. The risk is that we will have categories and media on other projects tagged with these Wikidata types as if they were taxonomies of humans that the projects support. It may be that we will need a cross-project guideline if these do get misused. -- (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@: I don't think it would make sense to pursue a cross-project guideline, since such a thing would be hosted on Meta and would have to go through the dreadful Meta RfC process. I think proposing similar guidelines on both Wikidata and Commons would be an easier way of achieving such goals.
I think it would still make sense to indicate that people have identified as being part of racial groups (as opposed to ethnic groups), since this is obviously still fairly commonplace (e.g. people self-identifying as white). This would most likely either require splitting uses ethnic group (P172) based on the value, or broadening its definition to something like "ethnic or racial group" and periodically manually checking values which might not be appropriate (since it might be difficult to do so with a constraint violation while also retaining the current constraint violations). However, a factor that could complicate this is that contemporary usage does not necessarily distinguish race from ethnicity (e.g. "white" would be more or less synonymous with "European American" in the US). Jc86035 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The goals of commons and Wikidata are quite different when it comes to descriptions. In commons you want the person who edits a picture make an editoral judgement about what's the best way to classify the picture. In Wikidata we rather want to describe the different ways that external sources describe the person and we are open for external sources disagreeing and we listing multiple classification. ChristianKl❫ 08:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate your concerns, I do not really think that there is currently an issue. I can't really see any instance consistent misuse of these items. That being said, I think that the higher standards for sources that we have for ethnicity should be enough, as per ChristianKl, and if you are aware of any misuse that can be proven as such by sources, we can fix it. Also I would be against using such descriptions - stating where a term can and cannot be used would be out of item descriptions scope, unlike with property descriptions and property use. Regarding "obsolete concept", I feel that we cannot clasify it as such - even a quick look at the English Wikipedia article will show some conteporary uses of the concept, so it might not be an option. All in all, I think that the best course of action is to use our current policies to ensure that these items won't be misused - if you think that there is a broader gap in the policies, please do share with us your ideas. --Kostas20142 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is the neutral failed hypothesis (Q66970557) such concepts could be made instance or subclass of, with references to the refutation(s). --SCIdude (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

PetScan problem

Oh generous gods of Wikidata, have mercy on my Luddite soul. I'm not really understanding why this query isn't returning any results. I know there is at the very least articles for Leslie Lamport (Q92613) on both projects in this category. So I know I should get at least one result minimum. But nothing. GMGtalk 18:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The name of category you inputed contains invisible left-to-right mark (Q1022245). It should be removed in your query. ({{ping|Magnus Manske)) PetScan really should automatically remove it as it is found in many places in MediaWiki interface.)--GZWDer (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Well I'll be damned. I never would have figured that out in a million years. GMGtalk 20:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Resolved now. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

2020-01 Imperium in imperio

Should Imperium in imperio Q3796835 and state within a state Q65168291 be merged? Involved contributors: @Epìdosis, Borvan53:. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support They are the same concept, as far as I know. However I would like to read the opinion of someone more familiar. --Kostas20142 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Epìdosis 07:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support The meaning is the same. But, in most languages, both expressions (latin and vernacular) are used. So why not... Borvan53 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose one item seems to be about a phrase, the other about a concept (political sciences?) --- Jura 08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Add/replace references?

I'm not entirely sure where to ask this question, but here goes:

Lots of Wikidata entries have very incomplete or even invalid references that are repeated a number of times, e.g. in the genre (P136) entry at Santa Claus: The Movie with just a retrieval date, possibly imported by a bot. I'd like to replace all occurences of this reference with a complete one (w/ title, language, stated in aso.), but doing it manually in hundreds of pages is impossible. I'm using the copy/insert references add-on quite a bit, but even that is unncessarily cumbersome when this should be done with a script. Also, it doesn't work across entries on different pages.

Is there such a thing as a script that can do this? Asav (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a job for WDQS and Quickstatements. The first can find items with references of interest; the second can be used to change the refs - albeit at the cost of deleting and remaking the statement. It's not trivial, since you'll need a SPARQL query - but Wikidata:Request a query - and you'll need to be able to turn the report output into a quickstatements input - see its help. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Asav: This is a very common reference format for imported statements, and there are hundreds of thousands of these from IMDb and MusicBrainz. I don't think it's worth fixing these specifically, because neither database would be considered a reliable source. It would probably be better to remove these entirely once better references have been imported. Right now, they're not doing anyone any harm, and they're not really any worse than the millions of imported from Wikimedia project (P143) uses. Jc86035 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thank you for the heads up! I've looked at both, but I don't think I'd be able to puit together such a script. If somene could make a sample that works on one page, I'd be able to amend it to worsk on other pages as well. Do you know who'd be able to wtite such a sample script?
@Jc86035:You're absolutely wrong on this count. Literally tens of thousands of Wikipedia infoboxes in multiple language editions rely heavily on Wikidata references, so not fixing this simply is not an option. I'm sorry, but your your suggestion is not helpful at all. Asav (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Asav: Sorry, I didn't realize that you meant that the references were showing up in Wikipedia articles. I think not displaying these references would be possible in a Wikidata infobox, and it would probably be a better long-term solution than fixing all of these references which will (hopefully) eventually no longer be necessary. (I'm not sure if nowiki allows user-generated content, since the relevant policies don't seem to mention it, but the English Wikipedia doesn't.) I think for this particular issue it would be sufficient to add a filter in w:no:Mal:Infoboks film/wikidata and its counterparts by using w:no:Module:String. (Edit: The template uses a Wikidata module, so this is incorrect. 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)) Alternatively, if the main issue is that it is unacceptable to show "bare URLs" in references, then the infobox could filter out all such references; and if IMDb is considered acceptable on nowiki (for whatever reason) then I would probably go with what Tagishsimon has suggested.
I would also note that there is an active project to integrate Citoid in Wikidata, so it will soon(-ish) be somewhat easier to generate valid references. Jc86035 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, not fixing a problem means not solving it. This needs a valid solution, not to be hidden away. If you have any constructive suggestions as how to fix the reference search/replace problem, please contribute them. Thank you! Asav (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Asav: The "valid" long-term solution is to remove the references and replace them with better ones. Obviously, that is not currently happening on any sort of meaningful scale, and probably won't happen for some time. Hiding invalid Wikidata references has always been a perfectly acceptable option; the infobox you're currently dealing with already uses that option, since w:no:Module:Wd shows a reference "only if at least "stated in", "reference URL" or "title" is present". Wikidata infoboxes will probably always have to do filtering on statements and references to avoid this sort of issue, e.g. because Wikidata doesn't have any policies or guidance on what sources to use, and so some references used in Wikidata will most likely always be considered unacceptable on some Wikipedias; or e.g. because of the use of valid deprecated statements on items. Jc86035 (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I would also note that w:en:Module:WikidataIB omits references altogether purely because of the issue of formatting references in an acceptable way. Jc86035 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll just disagree with you, so I'm not following up this particular thread anymore, except to note that this is not relevant to just one type of references (e.g. IMDB) or one type of infobox, but a general problem that needs to be fixed.
Is there at least an API that I could access with an external program that would help med search/replace references? If so, where could I find its specifications, and what would I have to do to get access to it? It would only be used manually to access one page at a time, so there'd be no batch processing with all the risks involved. Asav (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
What you want to do is practically only possible with bot code, I'd say. In the past I have done similar modifications to references with pywikibot and it works fairly well, but from my experience you need to adapt the code quite often. Thus, there is no click-and-run ready-to-use script which you just needed to start, because it is simply not that easy of a task.
In the end you'd like to have a reference that matches one of the models defined in Help:Sources, probably "Web page" or "Database" types. Some of the missing reference qualifiers can indeed be complemented automatically (stated in (P248) based on the URL/ext ID ref qualifier, title (P1476) by crawling the source, etc), while others would require to verify the actual information (such as adding missing retrieved (P813) ref qualifiers). For external databases one can technically even try to crawl the source pages and scrape the information to be verified from it, but that is a real hassle and only makes sense in my opinion if there are really many cases from this external database to process. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you; that seems like a viable solution, provided that pywikibot can handle Wikidata entries. What I was thinking is somewhere along the lines:
1. Enter a valid reference to an entry (including title, retrieval date, stated in aso.)
2. use this reference as a source (the existing copy/insefrt reference script already has som reusable code for that), then
3. search for a particular target string (e.g. a barebone reference, such as url only) and
4. replace all occurences of the target with the source.
But I'm not entirely sure you'd need a bot for that; maybe a script would be sufficient as you'd only handle one page at a time? Asav (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The Wikidata:Bots policy is unfortunately not very helpful when you want do decide whether you need a bot account or not. From my experience, admins have different views on the matter, so in order to be on the safe side you probably want to use a bot account for such a task; that means that you need to request approval via Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot once you have a functioning script that can demonstrate its potential over there. Could be helpful anyways.
In pywikibot, you don't really need to re-use code from the copy/insert reference script. Using PAWS, you have already a working pywikibot installation available where only need to create the actual bot script. Something of the order of 100 lines of code would probably already be sufficient. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If IMDb ID (P345) was used in the sample above, the entity could easily include a statement that can provide further details for any reference using it. In general, I don't think reference URLs should be replaced. Obviously, one could complete them. --- Jura 09:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
That's not really the core of the problem, unless the data gathered from IMDB were to replace (i.e. also remove) the current barebones references, which mostly consist only of the URL and retrieval date. But I was using film entries mostly as an example because I've been working on a movie infobox based solely on Wikidata.
However, the problem is rooted much more deeply than this. There are probably hundreds of thousands incomplete references in Wikidata that need to be amended with title (P1476), stated in (P248), reference URL (P854), publication date (P577), page(s) (P304) (for printed articles) and ideally language of work or name (P407). (See discussion thread below). Asav (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


Hello. I want to discuss the structure of items of dam (Q12323).

1) Do all items must have instance of (P31)->dam (Q12323)?

2) How to show the type of the dam according to its structure? Please read w:el:Dam#Types of dams. It's not so clear, but it says the types of the dams. We have:

a) arch dam (Q890545) b) gravity dam (Q3497167) c) arch-gravity dam (Q357679) d) barrage (Q350495) e) embankment dam (Q1244922) f) rock-fill dam (Q11350418) (and concrete-face rock-fill dam (Q20180822)) g) earth-fill dam (Q11285593)

It's confusing because some items are about the shape and some about the materials. In wikidata we have that rock-fill dam (Q11350418) and earth-fill dam (Q11285593) are subclass of (P279) of embankment dam (Q1244922). But Wikipedia article don't. There is also dome dam (Q56631985).

Xaris333 (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. yes
  2. I think that rock-fill dam (Q11350418) and earth-fill dam (Q11285593) will be always poor stubs. Only one stub, in Japanese, exists among these two topics ! Such articles should be merged inside embankment dam (Q1244922). Best solution, for me : put every thing as a subclass of (P279) of dam (Q12323). More eover, shape and material are always closely linked.
  3. Please also notice beaver dam (Q4878217) and all topic related with it... Borvan53 (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

But how we are going to add the information about the shape and material? Xaris333 (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Also a dam
Don't forget that things like Oosterscheldekering (Q1893089) are dams too (and Dam Square (Q839050) used to be one). They whole waterworks ontology here seems to be a bit messy. A dam is a divider with water on both sides. So Q1816121 is a dam to ("strekdam" in Dutch) and breakwater (Q215635) often too. The current description of dam (Q12323) doesn't seem to cover this. Multichill (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Another dead end in Wikidata. The mess will continue. Xaris333 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is type of dam in ja-wiki. Classification by Japan Dam Foundation.

Category Subcategory Abbreviation
concrete dam (Q11302949) (concrete dam) gravity dam (Q3497167) (gravity dam) G
hollow gravity dam (Q11366848) (hollow gravity dam) HG
arch dam (Q890545) (arch dam) A
arch-gravity dam (Q357679) (arch-gravity dam) GA
multiple-arch dam (Q11341352) (multiple-arch dam) MA
buttress dam (Q1355334) (buttress dam) B
embankment dam (Q1244922) (fill dam) earth-fill dam (Q11285593) (earth-fill dam) E
rock-fill dam (Q11350418) (rock-fill dam) R
combine dam (Q11303142) (combine dam) GF
trapezoid-shaped CSG dam (Q11411941) (trapezoid-shaped CSG dam) CSG

--Afaz (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I add things?

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I used the help button, went through the item tour, and searched through Help:Contents and found absolutely no information on my problem, so I have no idea where else to look for help.

I am simply trying to add *エルニーニョ・南方振動* as the Japanese-language Wikipedia entry for Q7939. When I click edit, it allows me to specify the language but not the page. It won't let me publish without a page. How do I add the page??? -- Mocha2007 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I eventually figured out the issue. Apparently it doesn't like it if I try to type in the whole code (ja) instead of just the first letter (j). Unfortunately there's yet another issue. I have no idea what to do, if someone else knows how to take care of it, they can. -- Mocha2007 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that the Wikipedia article is already site-linked to El Niño Southern Oscillation (Q14524818). If the item El Niño (Q7939) is a better match, it can be moved by deleting it from the first item before adding it to the second. Ghouston (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
These are not identical. El Nino is part of the oscillation with the same name which also includes other phenomena. Looking at the jawiki article the sitelink is in the correct place and nothing should be changed. --SCIdude (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mocha2007: Wikidata collects concepts not articles. Do you understand that El Niño Southern Oscillation (Q14524818) and El Niño (Q7939) are different things, and that the article should point to El Niño Southern Oscillation (Q14524818) rather than El Niño (Q7939)? Have a look at the statements in these two items, especially has part (P527) and part of (P361). --SCIdude (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia

There is a RfC at Meta: Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia From the reasoning of it:
The m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project plan states as a foregone conclusion that the endpoint of its process will include calling the Foundation and affiliates by the name Wikipedia, admitting, among other obvious issues, that "Wikipedia France," will likely be confused with the French Wikipedia. The community consultation it cites in support apparently did not clearly include this information when it was put to its respondents, and therefore it is not representative of authentic community sentiment on the question. To the extent that the question may have been implied, community agreement with the proposals did not achieve majority support.
Feel free to take part in that RfC. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #399


Is the alternate image, Property:P6802 meant to display in the Wikidata infobox if the primary image is missing? It currently does not. I thought the idea was that if we do not have an image of the person or thing something closely related was meant to display, like a cover of a book they wrote or a work of art they created. Currently we display images of gravestones and coats of arms if no primary image is available, and we have the option of displaying all of them by ticking a box in the infobox even when the primary image is present. For instance at Robert Ensko (Q7344166) since we have no image of him, the image of his book would display. --RAN (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a question probably better asked at Commons:Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. In my opnion, infoboxes should not display tangential images, which can easily attract cruft and trivia. Some people would rather have infoboxes display every conceivable iota of information imaginable. Looks matter. Less is more. And in the case of Mr. Ensko, I'd argue it's better to have no image than an image of a book. Inboxes should display only the most exemplary images, not any old image available. -Animalparty (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia 2030 community discussions: Influence our shared future!

From today on to 21 February, the last facilitated round of movement discussions on the Wikimedia 2030 recommendations will be held. I created a dedicated page: Wikidata:Strategy 2018-20. These conversations offer the opportunity to review the movement strategy draft recommendations, and discuss how Wikidata community would be affected as well as how well they align with the strategic direction.

Wikimedians across the world have been shaping the 2030 strategy since 2017. The first phase was aimed at establishing a shared strategic direction: that by 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. This vision of Wikimedia’s future is shared by all of us, irrespective of background (such as home wiki, culture, etc.) or contributing model (some of us don’t edit, and yet, do take part in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission).

Wikimedia 2018–2020 is all about recommendations that answer the question: what systemic changes in our worldwide movement are needed to advance this vision? These new draft recommendations are intentionally broad and focused on long-term impact. However, they will inevitably be familiar to many of you. Your previous feedback was taken into account, and the recommendations are based upon both 2017 and 2019 discussions reports.

Since July 2018, a group of more than 90 volunteers from across the Wikimedia movement have worked to produce various drafts of recommendations to support this change. This effort is now reaching its final stage, and we invite you to review and discuss the new strategy recommendations. This final set synthesizes all previous drafts, and will offer a clear and condensed product for your review.

After the discussions, the recommendations will be finalized, and presented at the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin. Soon after that, the implementation phase will begin.

You can learn more about the process of forming these recommendations and the next steps in the Signpost’s text by Risker, and in a dedicated FAQ on Meta-Wiki.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons category question

When we have things like University of Washington Tacoma (Q7896583) and Category:University of Washington Tacoma (Q49217861), which one should the Commons category be connected to as a sitelink? - Jmabel (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The Commons category should be connected as a sitelink to the category item. If no category pages existed for the university on other wikis, then the Commons category link could be connected to the main item. Mahir256 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2020 (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. Jmabel (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Reducing the number of property proposal topics?

Cross-posting from Wikidata_talk:Property_proposal since I'm not sure that page is watched by many people: We currently have 13 different topics for property proposals - do we really need all of these? I quite like the approach that the status updates use, where the properties are just divided into 'general datatypes' and 'external identifiers' - would that simple split also work here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as i've noticed Authority control exist for external identifiers while Generic exists for everything else --Trade (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
For example Wikidata:Property proposal/gained territory from is in /Place but not /Generic. There are links to /all and /Overview below the topics, but nothing that just combines the non-identifier proposals, although the overview page can be sorted by category. Peter James (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are certain properties where domain knowledge is required to model them well. For people who are specifically interested in linguistics and our lexeme project it's helpful to have a list of properties proposals that deal with lexemes. Other scientific topics are similar in that we don't want properties to be created without expert input. The page for WikiCommons also seems to be valuable because it's a cluster that's interesting to certain people.
Another concern is that it isn't fun to go through a list of 120 properties to comment. I think it's more likely that people like commenting on stale proposals if they come in a chunk with similar topics. ChristianKl❫ 09:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I would support merging "Sport", "Transportation" and "Sister Projects" into Generic as they aren't used much currently. ChristianKl❫ 09:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Authority control might need splitting in two as it gets too long.--- Jura 09:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Jura1:I think we need a better definition of what exactly constitutes an 'authority control identifier' vs a 'normal external identifier'.--Trade (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki by curid?

Most wikis are linked by page title. Recently the two above were created using MediaWiki revision id. While there are cases where the revision id is needed, in general, wikis aren't linked that way.

The question doesn't seem to have been considered during the property creation discussion.

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Jeb, M2k~dewiki, Looniverse, Karl Gruber, DannyS712: @Pebaryan, Krabina, Mfchris84, Gerwoman:

Can you comment on this aspect?

Unless there are some good arguments, I'd replace the two properties with standard ones. --- Jura 12:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Using stable page ID instead of changing page title
Hello @Jura1:,

also Property:P6228 uses the ID of the page for example.

The page ID (curid) is given on pages like and does not change over time, while the revision id, e.g. changes with every revision. (

One advantage of using the page ID instead of the page title is that the page ID never changes, while the page title might became invalid if the page is moved on the other wiki and the old title is deleted. So, if a property uses the page title instead of the page ID (given by curid), every time the page title changes, also the property in wikidata would have to be updated (which probably never happens and the links will became invalid, since the people editing and moving pages on other wikis might not be aware that they would also have to update the wikidata property). --M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @M2k~dewiki: Ok, yes "curid" is the "page id" and not the "revision id". I had thought it was the later. (e.g. Wikidata:Project Chat has pageid=394 [9], but my comment above revisionid=1101869279 [10]
Obviously, same seems to apply to P6228.
I guess the question then is if we should change page_name-properties to (new) page_id-properties for most other wikis. --- Jura 13:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: Hej Jura, M2k~dewiki mentioned all the good arguments, why i have chosen the page-id to link these wikis with wikidata and mind that it is not the revision id. for other cases like articles are splitting up, this also will have impact on the corresponding wikidata items, but therefore it will make no difference if we choose page-title or page-id. imho page-id seems to be a little bit more stable. furhtermore i think it's totally ok, to have both here on wikidata, that some properties linking external wikis are using the page-titel (which is more human-friendly to read and also to edit) and others are linking by the page-id. Mfchris84 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Page IDs may be probably more stable, but on most wikis less visible. In any Wikimedia project, if a page is deleted and restored, then a new ID is created, and there are deletion logs for titles but not for IDs so it is not always possible to find them, unless a revision ID or title is known or an index exists. Which is better as an identifier probably depends on the software used and whether there are many page moves or temporary deletions. Peter James (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peter James: ad if a page is deleted and restored, then a new ID is created. In my opinion, usually if a page is "deleted", it is only marked as deleted, just not visible for regular uses anymore (but for admins), if it is restored then it is marked as visible for everyone again. The page ID (also the version history and all revisions) should stay the same. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peter James: as i understand you correctly, you're also pointing out, that both - page titles and page ID has its own advantages and disadvantages, am i right? what do you prefer? if a page is deleted and maybe created under a new page id - who guarantees that the page title will be same? i personally don't disagree with properties linking external wikis by the page title, but i think page id does it also in a good way. each property has its own properties and attributes and at least each own discussion process before creation. --Mfchris84 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Usual I work with article ID, not with lemma or with page ID. The cause, is that the lemma can be changed and the link is broken. The article ID is the most stable connection to a wiki. --K@rl (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It used to be that new IDs were created when pages were restored; looks like it was changed (at least in Wikidata) in 2016 (the page ID of Q22002272 changed; Q22162805 didn't). They can still disappear if there are history merges. Probably the main advantage of IDs is that they are unlikely to be reused for unrelated pages. Peter James (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: what is the difference between an article ID and a page ID? Could you please give an example for both? Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I know it's not the correct definition, but I meaned the version of an article --K@rl (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: do you mean the revision ID (oldid), e.g. vs. the page ID (curid), e.g. as discussed above? --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@M2k~dewiki: Correct this ID is not in the sense of a wiki connection. sorry but in German. Auch die Verbindung zum Regiowiki ist der wert aus der "Seiteninfornation". lg K@rl (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I found WikiSkripta ID (P3471) that also uses curid. I indicated that there with Property:P3471#P1552. --- Jura 06:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Question: Does this apply to all MediaWiki external identifiers? Or only to a selected few? --Trade (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • We seem to have only 4 using MediaWiki Page ID (Q83336089). Most others are MediaWiki page title (Q83336425)-based. Some of the later properties have external-id as datatype others string-datatype. When creating the external-id datatype, some opposed converting string-properies to external-id due to the stability issue. Most properties created for wikis since however do use external-id datatype. Wikimedia wikis generally use sitelinks (which are Q83336425 based). Not sure if this answers your question. --- Jura 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)