Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata:Project chat/bjn)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2018/08.

Project
chat

Lexicographical
data

Administrators'
noticeboard

Development
team

Translators'
noticeboard

Request
a query

Requests
for deletions

Requests
for comment

Bot
requests

Requests
for permissions

Property
proposal

Properties
for deletion

Partnerships
and imports

Interwiki
conflicts

Bureaucrats'
noticeboard

Contents

Geely[edit]

I had split the item to Geely (Q739000) (parent and private) and Geely Automobile (Q55118127) (subsidiary and listed company), as well as merging no label (Q10724582) to the parent company item. However no label (Q10724582) seem contaminated with wrong description of "family name" and other language equivalent, could someone spot all the wrong description in Geely (Q739000)?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) at 20:31, 23 June 2018‎ (UTC).

Torrent data dumps[edit]

Hi, since google couldn't I've came to ask here:

Are there any recent data dumps that can be downloaded via torrent?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shouldaistay (talk • contribs) at 19. 7. 2018, 20:00‎ (UTC).

polyploidy / polyploid[edit]

I don't know whether this is the proper place to raise this issue, but there seems to be a conflict whether polyploidy (Q213410) and polyploid (Q44445817) should be merged or not. Initially I thought it was a nobrainer, so I merged them. This was reversed by Andreasmperu. Since than, I have tried to enter into a meaningfull discussion here, but seem to hit a brick wall. As far as I can see, the topic discussed is exactly the same on all Wikipedia's, so no need for two items here. Andreas has not been able to give me any pointers on why it should be otherwise, but maybe here someone can, or otherwise can persuade Andreas to talk. BoH (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  • English labels, English descriptions and statements explain the difference between the two items.
    --- Jura 22:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
In that case the labels are wrong. Have you taken a look at the Enlish article. If you do, the issue should be resolved quickly. BoH (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The question is if the sitelinks are on the correct items depending on how are they are titled in each language. Please avoid re-purposing items to match some Wikipedia language version.
--- Jura 23:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not repurposing anything. There is an invalid statement on polyploid (Q44445817): polyploid is not a thing, it is a trait. As such, it is an adjective of the noun polyploidy. If you take a look at all the articles involved, you will see they belong together. BoH (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Have to say that BoH makes a good case; and for me it is telling that there are no language wiki overlaps amongst the sitelinks, just as if a single concept had been split between a redundant pair of wikidata items. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I have long found the en.wikipedia redirect of "polyploidy" to "polyploid" to be unhelpful, but everything is such a mess I have never gotten around to fixing them. People regularly say an organism is "a polyploid" in English. They should not be merged, any more than tetraploidy (Q453166) should be merged to tetraploid (Q16610359). Abductive (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
So you say that de:Polyploidie is a different subject than en:Polyploid and should have no link to each other? Read the articles and see that that is not the case: they discribe the same thing. Just like your example of tetraploidy and tetraploid by the way.
Note that the current article en:Polyploid does not describe a polyploid, but starts the definition with a cell with a polyploid trait.
Also note that as Tagishsimon aready mentioned, there are no language overlaps. If these two should really be separated, how come that there are no separate articles about them?
Maybe it is helpful to change 'polyploid' to 'red', so:
Polyploid cells and organisms are those containing more than two paired (homologous) sets of chromosomes.
becomes:
Red cells and organisms are those containing red chromosomes.
If that was really a thing, in the field you would probably talk of 'reds' if you describe organisms with red chromosomes. It would not justify a separation however. BoH (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally, there are three different questions:
  • (1) Do the items represent different concepts or different aspects of a concept?
  • (2) On which item should sitelink to language ABC go?
  • (3) Does Wikipedia in language ABC want to have a sitelink to language XYZ?
Whether all sitelinks would fit on a single item isn't relevant (2) and (3). That a page in language ABC mentions, describes or discusses all other concepts, doesn't answer (2). (3) can be answered outside Wikidata and can be achieved with local sitelinks or a LUA module.
--- Jura 14:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed we come across different questions. As a contributor to Wikipedia, I care less about into how much detail Wikidata wants to go. My main concern is the sitelinks. In the past, as everyone knows, sitelinks were taken care of by the Wikipedia's themselves. If that would still be the case, there would be no issue: it is very obvious that the topic discussed is only one topic.
It seems that in this case, we fall victim to some form of hypercorrectness, where 99.9% similarity is insufficient for some to merge.
That might seem to be the case, but it really is not. There is simply a mistake made by giving polyploid (Q44445817) a definition for the noun polyploid and than adding sitelinks to Wikipedia's that use polyploid as the adjective for polyploidy. BoH (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Useful to look at these in Reasonator, polyploidy (Q213410) View with Reasonator View with SQID and polyploid (Q44445817) View with Reasonator View with SQID, to see incoming links to the items, as well as the statements on the items directly. Two things to think about here: (i) sitelinks (ii) the web of statements on Wikidata. In respect of (i): having all the sitelinks together would be a good thing. In respect of (ii), we need to look closely at the incoming links to the items, to see if they create a critical need to keep a distinct item. In this case it is clear that if we merge polyploid (Q44445817) View with Reasonator View with SQID, we would also need to be merging tetraploid (Q16610359) View with Reasonator View with SQID, triploid (Q44449573) View with Reasonator View with SQID, allopolyploid (Q9607621) View with Reasonator View with SQID, and allotetraploid (Q25532160) View with Reasonator View with SQID to their corresponding items under polyploidy (Q213410) View with Reasonator View with SQID. But it looks as if the merger would create no difficulties beyond this, so should be clear to go. A final thing: it is important that the labels in all languages get updated to reflect their new item -- eg Dutch in particular would have to be changed from the equivalent of xxx-Ploid to xxx-Ploidy. But, *provided that this is done*, I see no reason to object to the merger. There's no particular reason to insist that the label in xx-language of the item here 1:1 matches that of the article in xx-language wiki. What is important is that the sitelinked articles cover the same subject and ideas; and that the label of the item here in xx-language corresponds to ontology of the item here. It's a general point: because of the desire to maximise sitelinkage here, the ontology of an item here may not 1:1 match the ontology of the article in xx-wiki, so long as they cover the same subject. That's okay, at least in my opinion. We're trying to build a workable wikidata ontology here, with sitelinks to as much as is relevant, not slavishly trying to describe the ontology of each and every xx-wiki. Jheald (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. If that were not the case, the Wikipedia's should abandon Wikidata as central point for sitelink and probably have to go back to the old interwiki's. I do understand the desire here on Wikidata to be as precise as possible, but one should not forget what are the means and what are the ends. BoH (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What would be the best way to go about the merging of these items? BoH (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Move the en.wikipedia article to "Polyploidy". Abductive (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It looks like an easy merge. There's a merge gadget that will do it automatically. Ghouston (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you already seem to know how to do that, it's how the discussion started. Ghouston (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It looks like an obvious merge to me. The question is whether User:Andreasmperu will continue to revert it. They haven't taken part in this discussion. Ghouston (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
That is the difficult thing, he is not taking part in any meaningful discussion, but still reverts. On a Wikipedia that would disqualify one from taking any reverting actions, but I don't know enough of the norms here. BoH (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if one places all sitelinks on a single item, there isn't really a need to merge the items. What do the related WikiProject participants think?
    --- Jura 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is the best option. It recognizes that on the topic discussed on all articles, the trait is the primary issue, while the cells and organisms with this trait are secondary. But it still allows room if someone ever would like to write a separate article about polyploid cells and organisms. It is an option I already performed, but this was reverted as well. BoH (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
My view is that we should not merge polyploidy (Q213410) and polyploid (Q44445817) but think instead about better ways to handle interwikis for such cases, which are collectively referred to as the Bonnie and Clyde problem, for which there is a dedicated WikiProject that is exploring potential solutions systematically. I suggest to move this discussion there and see whether this particular case is covered by the subcase typology that has been elaborated there. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a Bonnie and Clyde problem. All articles are about Bonnie and on the sideline mention Clyde as well. We can keep Clyde, but have all sitelinks on Bonnie, as Jura suggests above. BoH (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Property constraints – music releases[edit]

Should both AllMusic album ID (P1729) and AllMusic song ID (P1730) be allowed on the same item? AllMusic has album identifiers for singles, and currently items about songs released as singles seem to be about both the song (the musical work) and the single (the product/release containing that musical work and maybe another). The alternate way of modelling this would be to treat all singles as albums and prevent songs from being also classified as singles, which would require the creation of a lot of items. Jc86035 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It also seems that AllMusic generates one song ID per track per album (resulting in at least ten duplicate IDs for Thriller (Q380825)). Jc86035 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

AllMusic album ID (P1729) and AllMusic song ID (P1730) should not be allowed on the same item. A single release and the song are also two different things and should get their own items. The current situation with song and single sharing one item seems to me rather provisional. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: Yes, I thought so too. I've been trying to model (and source) Eastside (Q55975144), and so far I've made items for the song itself, its music video, and the single releases on iTunes/Apple Music and Spotify. To me it would be logical to have items for each copy of the video (on YouTube and iTunes), each release of the single (on iTunes, Spotify, ...), the music video, the single and the song. I'm not sure whether the release on YouTube Music counts as a video or an audio track. Jc86035 (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
(I've assumed it makes sense to have separate items for the iTunes and Spotify singles because they have different metadata and the iTunes single is stated to have been released a day later. Same reasoning for the videos; the YouTube video is also slightly longer. The iTunes music video is pending a property proposal.) Jc86035 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I never thought about the modelling of different distributions and at this moment it does not seem necessary to have different items for these, unless there are other differences (sometimes releases differ in the tracks they contain). I think one could just put the release dates on the single item, maybe with qualifiers (as done for most films).
I would rather think about creating items for each recording of a song, as this may be needed to express who performed a song (line-up changes, cover versions) and sometimes one release may contain different recordings of a song. To have an example: The Number of the Beast (Q43883448) has two single releases: The Number of the Beast (Q780895) (1982) and The Number of the Beast (Q3988522) (2005). The Number of the Beast (Q3988522) (2005) contains the original version and additionally a live recording from 2002 with a different line-up. (About this topic there was a discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Music#recording/performance_informations_of_songs).
It could make sense to have an own item for the music video, if one wants to indicate information like choreographer, director, etc. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I considered merging the iTunes and Spotify items, but I think I didn't know how to model "iTunes" and "Spotify" into the qualifiers for date and so on (I had to undo the merge). It does make sense to make additional qualifiers for separate recordings of a song, but how would this be structured? Would the original recording be the canonical version (with modified version of (P5059)), or would the song itself be a separate entity from both versions (with edition or translation of (P629))? I think either approach would make sense depending on when each version is recorded/released; if they're released at the same time then edition or translation of (P629) might make more sense. Jc86035 (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I see that publisher (P123) is used on no label (Q55977614) to link this to spotify. So maybe one could use publisher (P123) as a qualifier for differing dates?
If one would create items for recordings of a song one could use recording or performance of (P2550).
With recording or performance of (P2550) one would have the following items/statements for The Number of the Beast (Q43883448):
The same would apply to cover versions. Consider the song Hurt (Q1142043):
One would link to album or single releases like above.
modified version of (P5059) is also an option. The biggest advantage of using modified version of (P5059) would be probably the one that an item for the first recording may be omitted. Following recordings would be own versions of the initial recording-work. (So one would have <The Number of the Beast (2002 recording)> modified version of (P5059) The Number of the Beast (Q43883448) (comprising both the song level and the 1982 recording) and Hurt (Q51448159) (Johnny Cash) modified version of (P5059) Hurt (Q1142043) (Nine Inch Nails). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I think publisher (P123) might not be the best option to indicate this, since Spotify and Apple aren't really publishers of music (and a release on Apple Music can be much later than the release on the iTunes Store). Something like [service] → Apple Music (Q20056642) might be the best option. online service (P2361) seems to be for something else but maybe its scope could be broadened to be more like that of platform (P400). Jc86035 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
According to the examples at the property page online service (P2361) could be fitting. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I've merged the items for the single into one. I don't think there's anything wrong with it right now. Jc86035 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Valentina.Anitnelav, Mahir256: Let's say I want to represent the release history of Popular Song (Q7229734), which currently has one item representing the song (sung by Mika (Q186329) and Priscilla Renea (Q7245622)) and the re-recording (sung by Mika and Ariana Grande (Q151892)), as well as the single (which consists of the latter). I'd also want to model Popular (Q3908430) (the song from the musical Wicked), since it's sampled prominently in "Popular Song".

  1. I'm guessing there should be one item each for "Popular Song", the re-recording, and the single, modelled as described above.
  2. Is the canonical version of "Popular" the composition by Stephen Schwartz (Q542484), or the track sung by Kristin Chenoweth (Q231811) on the cast recording, Wicked (Q7998266)? Are they the same thing?
  3. Is Popular Song (Q7229734) instance of (P31) recording (Q13557414)/music track (Q7302866) (as well as a song)?
  4. Is "Popular Song" based on (P144) "Popular" because of its sample? Is there a better way to explain this?
  5. Is Chenoweth a performer on "Popular Song", or is this assumed because of the indication of the sample?

Jc86035 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Some preliminary thoughts on your questions (numbered for clarity):
  1. Yes; a single release may have B-sides or multiple remixes or edits of a song that themselves may be included in other albums or compilations.
  2. The canonical version should be the composition by Stephen Schwartz, since those who perform Wicked on stage may not necessarily wish to base their stylistic choices on a specific performance of the musical.
  3. If it is uniquely identified by a given International Standard Recording Code (P1243) and MusicBrainz recording ID (P4404), then yes. (We probably should reserve P31 "song" for the composition and not its recordings.)
  4. In this case we may wish to add a "samples" property to make this relationship clear (something especially useful for hip-hop tracks; this also could permit a "whosampled.com ID" for individual songs).
  5. I would defer to what the official credits for a given song say, in an effort to express relationships similar to how, for example, Stan (Q312122) was 'written' in part by Dido despite the relevant portion of that song being ripped from Thank You (Q1635376).
Mahir256 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Treating e.g. "Popular Song" as a composition separate from the original recording (instead of just as a "song") really complicates things, I think, since covers which aren't note-perfect facsimiles would also have to have an item for their arrangement. Is the cover then a work based on the recording or the composition? I think arguably they should be represented as one and the same because the production of a song might not be "recorded" in the literal sense of being based on a real recorded sound. Jc86035 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I'm quite torn between the ideas of collapsing the levels of work and recording for (most) songs in popular music and keeping them distinct. There are definitely advantages concerning cover versions (for some it is quite a stretch to call them just recordings of an existing work, as there might be considerable changes (genre, tonality, etc.) and it is actually hard for most songs in recent popular music to refer to a "work" apart from the recording (the vagueness concerning those features as tonality, rhythm, etc. (if abstracted from a certain recording/performance) and the relevance of improvisation contributes to this)). But there are also disadvantages: We would need to treat classical music (and maybe songs with a traditional songwriter) and popular music differently and we would need to call the recording of a live performance of a band of a song previously recorded by themselves in studio a "modified version". There is also the question of the identification of composer/lyricist: would we want to indicate them at every version - then it might be better to have an own composition item? Or would we just indicate them at the original version, maybe indicating arrangers at the other version via adapted by (P5202)? As to your questions:
  1. I agree with you and Mahir256: There needs to be at least an item for the recording-work ("canonical version"), the rerecording ("different version") and the single (depending if we want a uniform way of modeling classical music and popular music there might be the need of a work/composition-item)
  2. There should be definitely a separate item for the composition by Stephen Schwartz and each recording/performance should be distinct from this item. In most cases a separate item for the performance of a song in a musical might not be needed, as it is sufficient to have an item for the performance of the whole musical with cast information and to indicate the character featured in this song to deduce that a performer performed a song on stage. But if an item for a recording is needed (e.g. to specify that this was sampled in another work or to link it to a release) it should be created.
  3. Popular Song (Q7229734) is currently a single. If one creates an item for the song one could think about collapsing this with the recording.
  4. There is has melody (P1625) that could be used to indicate that Popular Song (Q7229734) (on the composition level) uses a melody from the composition of Stephen Schwartz (but this would be just on the composition level). To indicate that Popular Song (Q7229734) (the recording/performance) uses actual sound from the recording by Kristin Chenoweth (Q231811) another property might be needed (If a new property is created this could also be used to indicate that a certain track is used in a film, when there is no soundtrack album) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I agree with you and Mahir256 on points 2 and 4. For point 3, I would keep all the interwiki links on the item about the original song recorded with Renea, and split the single and the version with Grande off into new items, since in my enwiki experience (from substituting Template:Infobox single (Q8999420) with a bot account) it's very rare for an article to be about the single release rather than the song unless there are two or more A-sides (which is also quite rare outside "single albums").
I think it's interesting to note that "a song by" usually means the songwriter only in enwiki articles for songs up to about 1960, or otherwise for songs where the sheet music isn’t just a partial transcription of the recording and/or was released before any recordings (e.g. Palladio (Q19059210)). There would probably be some edge cases (I think classical pieces published as recordings first would have to be both recording and composition).
If nothing else, recordings of live performances by the original artist could use a specific Wikidata item ("live recording of a song"?) which is classified differently in some way to cover version (Q155171) and live album (Q209939). For performances themselves, I think maybe a new "setlist" property (like tracklist (P658)) could be used to avoid creating new items for performances which weren't commercially released and don't have their own identifiers. Jc86035 (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Moebeus: Would you have any input about this? Jc86035 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Before I begin: Classical music is "it's own thing" and we shouldn't try to model pop songs after how classical music is treated or vice versa. There are obviously some gliding, overlapping areas between the two but I think that belongs in a separate discussion (or discussions). I come from the world of popular music, and will try to limit my comments to that field. Musical works, recordings and releases are three well established, well understood, separate things. That WD often conflates song and single I view as a legacy issue stemming from Wikipedia, and something that slowly will disappear over time as we the editors properly split these items up into their proper parts. What I personally would really, really like to see is the inverse of recording or performance of (P2550), something like a "has recordings" property to use with musical works, to properly model both ways of the relationship. Should both AllMusic album ID (P1729) and AllMusic song ID (P1730) be allowed on the same item? The answer is no in my opinion, they clearly represent different things. We should encourage entering data "properly" and strive to correct historical entries. I apologize for not answering everything but I need some more time to parse through this large (but very interesting!) discussion Moebeus (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Inverse properties[edit]

On the whole thing about using explicit inverse properties: can someone explain to me why there is so much of this in Wikidata? Is it just that it would be so computationally intensive to find the incoming references to an item? If so, couldn't we still only explicitly maintain one side of such a relationship and have a notion of certain properties having an inverse, so that when the property is added, modified, or deleted the inverse is automatically maintained, rather than someone needing to do so explicitly? (An approach like that would also guarantee consistency.) - Jmabel (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I have no idea. has part (P527) was created without consensus, for what it's worth.
I think it could be just part of a broader norm/tendency to add as much data as possible to prettify items. For example, at time of writing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Q55223040) has somewhat unnecessary qualifiers for place of birth (P19), since in its existence the Bronx has always been part of both New York and the US.
As another example, MusicBrainz recording ID (P4404) was originally supposed to be used as a qualifier for tracklist (P658) (and I have done so as well), even though this shouldn't actually be necessary since each song/track item should have at most one (barring MusicBrainz errors), or at worst zero (which makes its use as a disambiguating qualifier sort of useless); similarly for series ordinal (P1545) on part of (P361) qualifiers for songs/recordings, which duplicate tracklist (P658) qualifiers on albums, singles and their versions. Jc86035 (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

More modelling things[edit]

@Mahir256, Valentina.Anitnelav: Let's say I want to model the song Make You Feel My Love (Q1886329) (by Bob Dylan), along with its three covers that were released as singles (by Billy Joel, Garth Brooks and Adele). So far, these items exist:

Let's also assume that I'm not going to bother doing any more tracklist (P658) things because it takes too long and MusicBrainz doesn't even have identifiers for all four of Adele's single releases.

  1. Wikipedia says the Joel single was actually the first release, as Joel's album was released on 19 August 1997 (no single date given), before Dylan's album was released on 30 September 1997 (single was apparently released in 2010). Is the song still a Dylan song?
  2. How is "Make You Feel My Love" (Live At Hotel Cafe) classified? Is it more than a version (Q3331189)? Do we need to create an item for tracks which were recorded live and are versions of another song (i.e. tracks on a live album (Q209939))?
  3. If "Make You Feel My Love" (Live At Hotel Cafe) and the studio version were released at the same time, is the studio version automatically the canonical version by virtue of not having a parenthetical disambiguator on its track name?
  4. Does Wikidata need to record track names like "Make You Feel My Love (Live At Hotel Cafe)", or should they only be in named as (P1810) qualifiers to references while the actual name stays in title (P1476)?
  5. There are no credits on Adele's music video (at YouTube, at least) that say that it uses the live recording. I had to figure it out based on the differences between the tracks. If I can't find a source for this, will it eventually have to be removed?
  6. Is a gramophone record (Q178588) automatically assumed to have a certain diameter and rotational speed? There is an item for the 12-inch single (Q918887), but not for any other sort of record. Should this information be in qualifiers for distribution (P437) statements, or should separate items be created?
  7. If a single has more than two tracks, is it automatically a maxi single (Q3046922) or a "single album", or do we ignore that terminology in classifying singles?

Jc86035 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I will only refer to questions 1-4:
  1. If one takes the definition of a cover version (too) literally one might get the idea of Joel's version being the original and Bob Dylan's the cover, but I actually don't find anybody claiming this and this seems rather counter-intuitive to me (he wrote the song as a singer-songwriter with intending to perform it himself), but this is still an interesting case.
  2. version (Q3331189) is a possibility, one could also think about using music track (Q7302866) (which rather puts stress on the recording aspect) or musical performance (Q6942562) (which rather puts stress on the performance aspect). To use Make You Feel My Love (Q56085861) (live recording) recording or performance of (P2550): Make You Feel My Love (Q56085788) (studio version) might be conceptually rather odd if we think of Make You Feel My Love (Q56085788) as a recording-work (because then we would have a recording of a recording). There is revival or touring version of (P5328), intended for performance works, maybe this could be an option for linking the live performance/recording to the studio version, but I'm not sure (@Beat Estermann: as he proposed this property}}). In this situation a model distinguishing between work/arrangement and recording(s) is at advantage, but maybe we can just ignore this oddity.
  3. There might be some special cases but normally (also in this case, as it seems to me) the studio version should be the canonical version as this was developed under controlled circumstances, best representing the artists/composers/producers conception of the song.
  4. It might be better to name Make You Feel My Love (Q56085861) "Make You Feel My Love (Live At Hotel Cafe)", as it might get quite confusing with all those "Make You Feel My Love"-items and this makes it easier to disambiguate. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav:
  • For #2, I think it is best to distinguish an arrangement from a recording: the two Adele recordings (the "cover" and the "live version") are much more similar to each other than they are to the Dylan recording (intro, key, melody, singer's timbre, tempo, instrumentation, ...), so the "live at hotel café" version should probably be stated to be a recording of the cover.
  • For #4, adding the parenthetical doesn't really help because there would still be at least thirteen items related to the song titled "Make You Feel My Love" (the song itself, three covers, four singles, the four distinct versions of the Adele single, and one music video). The parentheticals can also vary across services (e.g., on Spotify the track on the single is named "Make You Feel My Love (album)"), so there would have to be multiple entries for differing bits of titles which should really be in a separate metadata field.
Jc86035 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How authoritative is GRID?[edit]

I see a GRID ID (P2427) given as the citation for

< Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (Q487148) View with Reasonator View with SQID > located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) View with SQID < Seattle (Q5083) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

How authoritative is that? I was a member of this (defunct) organization, and while the Seattle chapter was one of the three or four most active, I'm pretty sure the organization was headquartered in the Bay area. Doug Schuler may have been CPSR's last president, and he lives in Seattle and was for many years our chapter president, but I don't remember the organization ever having been considered to be based here.

Just to be clear: main upshot of my question isn't this one statement but the reliability of data from GRID. - Jmabel (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pintoch: From my expericences (mostly at Wikidata:WikiProject Companies, as GRID ID (P2427) data are common for company items,) the reliabitily is average. Sometime data are outdated, inaccurate or unclear, on the other hand no clear mistakes. Pinging User:Pintoch, as he created lot of GRID-based items.--Jklamo (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, in general I'd characterize GRID as pretty reliable, and improving over time. They respond to correction requests - I've sent them hundreds (often for duplicates based on wikidata matching). It's certainly the best openly available database of research-related organizations, but far from perfect. In this case, if you look at the wikipedia entry for CPSR you'll note it lists the headquarters as Seattle, so that at least agrees with GRID. We do have an issue with use of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) vs headquarters location (P159) for organizations which would probably have been the better property to use in this case (but many items in GRID like hospitals, colleges, etc. really do have specific locations). ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jklamo: In my experience GRID is fairly reliable - it does have errors, but which source does not? I would not call it "authoritative", as this database is itself derived from others. (So it is less authoritative than, say, a national company register.) For the locations, I would expect that most errors that end up in Wikidata come from reconciliation issues (primarily because of the cebwiki / GeoNames mess). − Pintoch (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata user data leak? (full query request logs)[edit]

It appears that TU Dresden and Wikimedia Foundation published full query request logs. Please see https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2018-August/012289.html

Apparently requests to make this opt-in only weren't successful. Regrettable as WMF was one of the websites to move ahead with https early.

Maybe alternate mirrors should be set up.
--- Jura 16:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smalyshev (WMF):, as one of the authors of the related paper: thoughts on this? Also @Jura1: Alternate mirrors of what? The Query Service? The entirety of Wikidata? Mahir256 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There was no "full query request logs" published, please do not say that, it is misleading. We have discussed it in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197777 and I though I have provided information about this. What was published is (valid) SPARQL queries, with SPARQL query text was sanitized to exclude any information that could potentially identify any person or contain any personal data, and broad classification of request agent (e.g. browser or bot).
It is not possible for anyone to "opt-in" exactly because there is no link between person (or user) and the query. If you said "please opt-in all my queries" (or "opt out") we couldn't because we do not know which queries are yours! Additional query processing was done in case there's some clever way to use information inside queries (like coordinates, or names, or text search strings, etc.) to link them to any person. This information was removed.
As I said on the ticket, if you have a concern that any PII might have still left (or even potentially left) there, please identify it. So far nothing of the sort has been brought to our attention. We are talking about SPARQL queries to public database. Note that https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/runs/all lists all queries on Quarry, as far as I can see, while also identifying the user running them, and so far nobody has expressed any concern whatsoever about it. We are releasing very strictly sanitized data which has no link to any personal data at all. I'd like to know the source of the concerns.
As for setting up mirrors - Wikidata Query Service is an open source software, and you are certainly welcome to run it, including with Wikidata data mirror. I've made a number of improvements (relatively) recently to make it easier, and there's excellent work implementing docker install for WDQS. There are docs on how to run your own instance and on how to run standalone install, and I welcome you to reach out to me if you need any help with running WDQS, anytime. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Normally, I'd have expected this to be announced in advance and given the users the option to opt-out or not opt-in to the publication. I think WMF should provide a service that isn't publishing full query logs.
    --- Jura 13:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think there's misunderstanding here. Again, nobody is "publishing full query logs". And I am not sure how could any user opt out if we don't know which user the query belongs to? I think we're walking in circles here. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Fetch only specific "instance of" content from Wikidata[edit]

Hello. In the context of improving a wikidata-supported infobox on enwiki, is it possible to fetch the "instance of" parameter from Wikidata, but to only display it if the field contains specific content... For example, lets say I want to add a wikidata infobox for Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330) on Wikipedia. In that infobox, I want to show that Nesjavellir is one of three types of geothermal power stations (i.e. Dry Steam, Flash Steam, or Binary Cycle). But as you can see in Nesjavellir's wikidata item, further types of "instance of" could be loaded for various reasons. How do I filter those out? Thanks in advance! Rehman 04:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Use lua code to filter the data extracted from WD, or create a dedicated property in WD with constraints to be sure that only a limited set of value is used for one characteristic of the item. Instance of will be the less reliable value in WD as there is no unique way to classify an item. Snipre (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Snipre. If you are willing, may I ask for your help to do that at this sandbox please? Or maybe show an existing example? I need to update | data13 so that it:
  1. Filters from Wikidata to "only show one of the three geothermal power plant types"
  2. Use the local value, if a local value is added
If I can see an example of how that's done (particularly #1), I can work out how to implement the same in other areas as well... Rehman 10:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A non-Lua way to do it is {{#ifeq:<search string>|{{replace|<search string>|<search text>|}}||<display text>}} - where <search string> is the info from P31, <search text> is the text you are looking for, and <display text> is what you show in the infobox if it's found. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. I've added it at en:Template:Infobox power station/sandbox; it seems to work for Flash Steam and Dry Steam, but oddly not for the third type Binary Cycle. I've tested it on the Wikipedia articles of Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330) and Hellisheiði Power Station (Q2508514). If it's not too much trouble, could you help me fix the error(s) in the sandbox on label13 please? Separately, I'm also trying to get header12 work when label13 is in use; it works without the wikidata support so far. :( Rehman 10:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Anyone? Rehman 04:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

located at street address (P969) concern[edit]

For several years, I'm still wondering that why this is a pure string property, instead of a monolingual text property? Why someone says that the value of that should only be in one language (or even English only), even used in Switzerland related items, where Switzerland is clearly one of multilingual countries? Can we please create a new monolingual text property with same translations of this, and replace it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that as I statemented here, I Symbol oppose vote.svg humbly veto any qualifier (e.g.language of work or name (P407)) suggestions, as they really give nothing helpful, and, as of now, not all wikis support that way. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I agree that this property should be monolingual text. Quite a few countries and territories don't monolithically use one language or even one writing system. Jc86035 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Head up: Mix'n'match sync[edit]

Mix'n'match sync to Wikidata seems to have been inactive for a while/some catalogs. It's now starting up again, so we might see a large (10-100K) influx of statements under the User:Reinheitsgebot account. Each catalog sync gets its own batch ID, you can revert the entire batch at EditGroups if necessary. Please let me know about any major problems, however, please keep in mind that the occasional erroneous edit is not something I can scale to fix. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly does a sync do? I thought doing a match on Mix'n'match added the ID to Wikidata immediately. Is this going to re-add all the bad matches we already removed? - Nikki (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske, Nikki: Yes, I saw a number of errors I had made and then reverted reintroduced just because I hadn't made the fix on Mix'n'Match too (which I would eventually get to by checking the reports and synching. I'm afraid I don't see the purpose of this task - IMO if MnM and wd differ long after MnM was used to assign a value, a human should evaluate. --99of9 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh great. I've spent hours and hours removing IDs added to the wrong items (which usually come from Mix'n'match, since it seems to be full of absurd suggestions which people accept anyway) and now they're going to be re-added? What a complete and utter waste of my time... - Nikki (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Interface administrators[edit]

I propose this to become an official Wikidata policy. If you disagree with the proposed text, please say so before the thread is archived.--GZWDer (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Overall it looks fine. --Rschen7754 23:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for writing! Wikidata:Administrators demands at least eight supporting votes, I think it would be good to copy that requirement as well. --abián 14:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As it's just css and js, not interface in general, shouldn't it be named accordingly? Some wikis have interface editors that can edit mediawiki namespace.
    --- Jura 12:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It is not just css and js, see Special:ListGroupRights#interface-admin. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It looks like the description doesn't match the actual rights granted. I'm not sure if the proposal should differentiate between users beyond grandfathering existing ones.
        --- Jura 14:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Design advice for church parish start and end and name changes[edit]

We are cleaning up Swedish church parishes (project wmse-riksarkivet-tora task T199784

One church parish can change name at a specific point in time. Question: What is the best way to model that?

I can see that Wikidata has plans to support contemporary constraints Task T141859 and contemporary constraint (Q25796498) if this is done we solve a never ending discussion we have in sv:Wikipedia when a person has an "event" and is connected to a parish and the comment is that the name is wrong it didnt exist at that time ==> we need to modell it in Wikidata correct to support contemporary constraints

What I do today

  • inception (P571) as startdate (see also T201738 activity to maybe change to use start time (P580))
  • many parishes has a date in medieval time ==> precision bad I have used setting date as somevalue see below

Anyone who has done anything in this area in Wikidata?

  1. Start date that is back in the days but not precise?
  2. Name changes in old days when it was rather vague...

Example Q10602596

"P571": [
   {
       "mainsnak": {
           "snaktype": "somevalue",
           "property": "P571",
           "hash": "6738a7099bb4f22cc0577088a076bf2faa9b02b6",
           "datatype": "time"
       },
       "type": "statement",
       "id": "Q10602596$44c50f4f-4738-c288-6c6b-8141cefe5575",
       "rank": "normal"
   }
],

- Salgo60 (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll provide a report about the contemporary constraint when I finish its implementation. I fear I don't fully understand the problem you are trying to solve, but I'll try to answer some of your questions anyway. To determine if a violation exists or not, the most permissive values are considered. This rule is applied to all cases, including low precisions, lack of statements for start/end points and special snaks (somevalue and novalue). When a start or end time isn't defined or has somevalue or novalue snaks, it's considered -∞ or +∞, respectively. However, you shouldn't use somevalue if you know the date with a certain precision; for example, if you know a value is in the 15th century, you should use that value, 15th century, with the precision of centuries, and the same for millenia, 10,000 years, million years, etc. It's usually a bad practice to use somevalue for dates. --abián 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem we have seen is
  1. The Swedish National Archives has been writing bios for people in Dictionary of Swedish National Biography (P3217) and in the old days they used names of church parishes that were not contemporary with the name used when the person lived
  2. We are now adding WD driven templates to sv:Wikipedia and many people complain when they see the wrong naming for a church parish that today has another name as it had 200 years ago
  3. As we now are "cleaning" WD objects for Swedish Church parishes and adding dates I can see the possibility to model parishes so we dont get some of the mentioned "wrong name" problems
using snak somevalue: Thanks I get your point...
As I have defined constraints on P778 to always have a date inception (P571) I used this somevalue approach but as you said I need to do my homework and see if we have better dates - Salgo60 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Likewise, , but she actually attended it when it was known as the "Inns of Court School of Law", which has since been merged into another institution and renamed. enwiki considers it to be a single entity with inception 1852. I'm sure there are countless examples in Wikidata when entities change name. Ghouston (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks it sounds logical it will also impact how we have written our sv:Wikipedia articles (sometimes a name change of an old church parish has got a new article) - Salgo60 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The whole question of continuity over time is quite difficult, because you have a mix of continuity and discontinuity, and at particular events you can deal with it either way (with separate items or a combined item). We also have that decision being made independently on different projects, so can even have both types of Wikidata items for the same real entity. On en:Margaret Thatcher, the infobox lists her alma mater as "Inns of Court School of Law", which redirects to the City Law School article. In theory, you could look at Thatcher's dates of education and the official names in City Law School (Q5123253) and write a script that would give the appropriate name, but it would be complicated, and you'd have to set up all the data properly to make it work. Ghouston (talk)

Add a date before year 1600 ?[edit]

The problem is that we in the Swedish Wikipedia article has parish from Middle Age and I guess we lack good sources from this timeperiod.... Best would be in WD to state something like before 1600

Question any good way to add a date like that e.g. Gödestads församling (Q10512613)

date of birth of Jesus (Q3016939) use somevalue with earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326) see json

Question: Is it better to set year -4 and earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326) ``

               "P585": [
                   {
.....
                       "type": "statement",
                       "qualifiers": {
                           "P1319": [
                               {
                                   "snaktype": "value",
                                   "property": "P1319",
                                   "hash": "546c4f04160340c5e16524aa1166c4a0060b3db2",
                                   "datavalue": {
                                       "value": {
                                           "time": "-0006-00-00T00:00:00Z",
                                           "timezone": 0,
.....
                               }
                           ],
                           "P1326": [
                               {
                                   "snaktype": "value",
                                   "property": "P1326",
                                   "hash": "0397268ab60c1914933b5e62244365e001ba0b39",
                                   "datavalue": {
                                       "value": {
                                           "time": "-0004-00-00T00:00:00Z",
                                           "timezone": 0,
                                           "before": 0,
.....
                           ]
                       },

- Salgo60 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Salgo60: For date of birth of Jesus (Q3016939) I added that myself because I was cleaning up some property examples, and I assumed that that would be correct or at least better (the value was initially <somevalue> with no qualifiers). Jc86035 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035 (talkcontribslogs) I agree but wouldnt it be better to have a imprecise date 5 BC precision decade than somevalue example date of birth of Jesus (Q3016939)
json ==> "precision": 8 on P585 (see datatypes)
- Salgo60 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that makes sense. Jc86035 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Awards refused or returned[edit]

Is there a way to express whether a person has refused a certain award, or returned it after initially accepting it?

Examples:

Returned[edit]

If it was accepted and returned, are start time (P580) and end time (P582) sufficient? Could the reason for the return be stored in some way?

Refused[edit]

I wouldn't like the awards to be removed from entities who refused, because the institutions giving them out deemed the recipient most worthy, so that's something which should be recorded in any way. But I think the refusal to accept should be noted as well. Ideally, the reason for the refusal could be stored.

Not Present at Award Ceremony[edit]

In addition, is there a way to record whether a person did not show up to accept the award in person? With a reason why? For the more prestigious ones, that might be of interest, e.g. Nobel Peace Prize laureates sitting in prison.

--109.91.21.82 09:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Speech given by someone else[edit]

Example Bob Dylan (Q392) received Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) and 2016 dylan speech was given by Azita Raji (Q20932627) - Salgo60 (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For "not present at ceremony", or anything else like it (eg "awarded posthumously"), I'd recommend a "significant event" qualifier on the award. I wouldn't worry about recording "speech given by someone else" but if you really want to, then you could use the same approach. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether somebody is present at a ceremony or not doesn't sound particularly significant. If they are in prison, that can be recorded in another way. As for refused or returned awards, I'd say it would depend on whether the issuer of the award still considers it awarded to that person. The receiver doesn't have any control, beyond refusing to take a prize, even dead people can receive awards. Ghouston (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think there have also been instances where awards were withdrawn by the issuer. E.g., see the disclaimer at the end of [1]. In that case, I suppose the award would have a start and end date. Ghouston (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
An example is Rolf Harris (Q1975172) being stripped of awards: they are currently still listed on the item, without end dates. Ghouston (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
has quality (P1552) may be a good qualifier for details like "award refused by recipient" (but perhaps still considered valid by the issuer), if an item was created for that. Ghouston (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
On the point of refusing awards, there are various "awards" that people may not want to receive, like Pigasus Award (Q1669430), but they get awarded with them anyway. Ghouston (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
In german wikipedia there is the de:Kategorie:Bundesverdienstkreuz abgelehnt for people who did not accept the highest german civil award. Steak (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Practically[edit]

I add many, many awards and typically it is from lists where details like these are not given. These lists ae revisited occaisionally and therefore additng qualifiers are fine. Removing awards is not practical without changing the sources. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedian with a job[edit]

I started a discussion about the lack of notability for Wikimedians at Wikidata talk:Requests for deletions#Wikimedian with a job. To be exact: these people. Input appreciated. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite your claim to be "exact", your list of people, whom you describe as having a "lack of notability" includes, on a cursory glance, a good number who are unambiguously notable - regardless of their generous endeavours as Wikimedians - by virtue of being the authors of scientific papers published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, some of which are cited in Wikipedias, not to mention in other scientific papers. Many of the people in your list are also the subject of multiple Wikipedia articles; in one case in 157 languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject WLE[edit]

Hi. I have left a discussion about monumental trees in Wikidata:WikiProject WLM but I realized we don't have a place for coordination about WikiLovesEarth. Shouldn't we have it? The workflow is not as intense as with WLM maybe, but I a was surprised to find nothing at all.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Count me in - the past months I was working on cleaning up the protected areas in my home area, and would be happy to have some formalized rules. E.g. how to best handle the common mash-up of the landscape, the nature preserve (sometimes split into several legal parts due to administrative boundaries) and the natura2000 site all covered in one Wikipedia article, whereas from a data point of view all parts need separated items. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Ahoerstemeier the big work on WLM ends in October-November. We can think about this at that point (if noone else did). We just put an introductory page with a list of common IDs for parks and nature, than we ping in the talk page some WLE organizers (author of pages on commons). You can do it yourself tihgt now, i can hel you with the ping if you create the page.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User instructions in descriptions are harmful[edit]

The answer is "Male", with the definition being the description from Wikidata item Q6581097, "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For groups of males use with subclass of (P279)"

This is what happens when a user asks Siri "What is the gender of an angel?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to see how that description is compliant with Help:Description. We have a sufficiency of examples of good practice, and sufficient users running reports looking & dealing with abarrent values, that we might now think about killing such descriptions with fire upon sight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I've boldly made that change; and likewise to female (Q6581072). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
What is the answer of Siri (Q582159) now? --Succu (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@BrillLyle, Dario (WMF):, as participants in the thread linked from the image. Mahir256 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Also @Thryduulf, Liuxinyu970226, Mbch331: as participants in the related discussion thread. Mahir256 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256, Succu, Thryduulf, Liuxinyu970226, Mbch331: I tagged someone on the Siri engineering team, but I don't have any other contact unfortunately.--DarTar (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tagishsimon: you might not know about the phab ticket and previous discussions on the topic. We came to the conclusion that these can't be avoided for now.
    --- Jura 21:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1: It would help to know which ticket it was, as I may have seen it but cannot readily find it. Mahir256 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It's prominently linked on the planned substitute's talk page: Property_talk:P2559.
      --- Jura 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jura. So Phab T97566. I see in it reluctance to implement a method of surfacing P2559 data, and a presumption that instructions cannot be removed until that method is implemented. I see no evidence that anyone has considered/measured whether instructions in descriptions work. I note comments that instructions are often only in one of the many description languages - suggesting that they are de facto not considered that important. My view has not changed: instructions should not be in descriptions, or, at least, not in item descriptions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tagishsimon: It shouldn't really be needed, but the substitute hasn't been implemented yet and re-users were advised to filter it differently. For P21, we could probably scrap it as the one-of property constraint offers a valid alternative.
    --- Jura 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Jura1 has reverted both changes, plus those made by colleagues in other languages after mine (which were in English). There is nothing in the cited Phabricator ticket (which is three-and-a-half years old, and has not been edited for over a year) which precludes my changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Why did you omit mentioning the problem with P2559?
    --- Jura 22:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because - as I indicated - that does not preclude the changes I made, as discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • You were aware of the potential problem and omitted mentioning it.
    --- Jura 22:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was and am aware that the delay in making use of P2559 in Wikidata's interface in no way precludes the changes I made, for the reasons discussed above. And don't edit the section heading here, which is both accurate, and used in links from elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Jura think the description should still include usage instructions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Siri (substance)[edit]

  • Beyond the wording of description, can I ask how you get such a strange answer? angel (Q235113) doesn't have a gender indicated, and male (Q6581097) is only supposed to be used for humans. Ghouston (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ghouston: it's most likely an entity resolution problem by Siri (either: 1. matching the word "angel" to some other Wikidata entity, or 2. performing some kind of other inference in its own knowledge graph, unrelated to Wikidata, concluding the answer is "male", and returning the corresponding description from Wikidata).--DarTar (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmm, either would be possible. A suitable Wikidata item is Angel (Q2005341) (who is fictional and a vampire, so probably shouldn't be using male (Q6581097)). Ghouston (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It may have even searched all the "Angel" items until it found one with a gender. Ghouston (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
        • It seems we frequently get complaints for Siri getting things wrong .. Should we start Wikidata:Siri oddities?
          --- Jura 20:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Not really. We haven't identified the source of the error. Even the amended description isn't correct in the context (provided they be male). Maybe Siri isn't really suitable for the purported purpose. Another broken search engine?
          --- Jura 02:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "We haven't identified the source of the error." Poppycock. In the case of the definition of "male", the error is ours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We're looking for why Siri thinks that it is "male", we are not talking about the description anymore. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is some confusion to distinguish angel (Q235113) from Ángel (Q2605655) where the latter is instance of (P31) male given name (Q12308941) and also has the word "male" in the English description.--Larske (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Paleobiology Database[edit]

Can the Paleobiology Database (Q17073815) be uploaded to Wikidata? They say they are a public database, under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Q20007257) license. Abductive (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know... no. Wikidata is CC0. U+1F360 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: However, we could probably import the label and a linking identifier (i.e. an identifier to/in Paleobiology Database (Q17073815)) (I'm assuming the label cannot be copy written). U+1F360 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive, U+1F360: a good start would be to plug the IDs/labels into Mix'n'Match.--DarTar (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Allready present via Fossilworks ID (P842). --Succu (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Please remember, I have no idea what this jargon means. I'm new here. Abductive (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: We can't import the data because Wikidata is under a CC0 (Q6938433) license (meaning, the license is not compatible). However, you can use Fossilworks ID (P842) to reference the id (of each item) in Paleobiology Database (Q17073815). That way you can build an association between Wikidata and Paleobiology Database (Q17073815). Does that make sense? U+1F360 (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: apologies (and welcome!), the link in my reply is a way of doing what U+1F360 suggested for catalogs that don’t have yet a dedicated property in Wikidata.—-DarTar (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I've added https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicTaxonInfo?taxon_no=$1 as a third-party formatter URL (P3303) value to P842. @Abductive: This means that other systems can use our values for P842 IDs and use them to access the corresponding pages on paleobiodb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an old discussion from 2014... Modelling via third-party formatter URL (P3303) has the drawback that you can't access the URI by clicking at it in the WD-UI. --Succu (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abductive: You can help to add these IDs to Wikidata, using the Mix'n'Match tool; the relevant catalogue is 78. You need to log in with your Wikidata user ID. The user manual is at meta:Mix'n'match/Manual. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of a Business[edit]

I am frequently creating items for groups featured as "companies" in the database MobyGames that publish or develop video games. However, according to the descriptions in the articles, these companies are often not separate businesses but are a named part of a different business that already has a Wikidata item. It seems appropriate to me to have a property linking the two items together, but I have been unsure what the best property or properties are for this purpose. I have been using the property pair subsidiary (P355) and parent organization (P749), but it is my understanding that that subsidiaries are defined to be separate companies on their own right that are owned by their parent companies, and I don't think many of the groups I find fit this description. Often times Mobygames lists the group as a "publishing label" or "label", but the property record label (P264) seems to apply only to music. Other times the group is simply listed as a "team" or a "name" that the bigger company uses for publishing games. I thought maybe I could use business division (P199) as a all-purpose property, but it doesn't appear to have a matching property "division of" - both of the examples mentioned in the property are also listed as subsidiaries of their parent organizations, leaving no guidance for business divisions that AREN'T subsidiaries. Should I simply be using part of (P361) and has part (P527)? Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

business division (P199) seems appropriate. An inverse claim isn't generally required in Wikidata. Ghouston (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes non-symmetrical properties are used just for the sake of making it bidirectional, e.g., and . It could be done that way in your case with business division (P199) and part of (P361), but I'm not sure that it's a good practice. Ghouston (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Thank you, that makes sense. I had worried that people stumbling across some of the more obscure groups may not be able to easily understand they are part of better known organizations - some of the groups have no description on their accompanying MobyGames article, and it would take me time to hunt down which organizations they belonged to. But it sounds like you are saying that making things bi-directional in these can cases can be problematic, and it might be best to simply do business division (P199) on the "parent" business. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, business division (P199) alone is sufficient. It's a bit confusing because Wikidata is actually a database, not just a way of constructing nice-looking item pages in a user interface. The item pages only show the claims where that item appears on the left-hand-side, and ignore all the equally valid claims where the item appears on the right. Ghouston (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Thanks again, that is what I will do. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You might also consider imprint (Q2608849), "trade name under which works are published; a publishing division of a publishing company", assuming we're agreed that video game publishers are publishing houses (not sure how video game editors treat that). I tend to draw a distinction between a business division with its own leadership and formal structure, and a brand that gets slapped on products for a certain market sector when there is no separate corporate division in charge of that brand - understanding that it's often hard to tell the difference from outside the company. - PKM (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@PKM: Thank you, that does sound more appropriate for many of these. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@PKM: Oh I just realized that imprint (Q2608849) is an item and what I would be looking for is a property like business division (P199). Though I think adding instance of (P31) imprint (Q2608849) would still be informative. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Using Alias to Disambiguate Common Item Names[edit]

When creating items with names that are shared by many other items, I have been creating an alias by appending the description to the name (for instance, Twilight (Q7857976) has the alias "Twilight video game developer"), which has allowed me to easily recover the item when linking claims to it. I thought perhaps this was OK given that the aliases don't have references attached and seem like an informal way to help users identify an item. However it occurs to me now that perhaps I should check to see if I should stop doing this. I just found the page Help:Aliases and on the discussion page there is a topic where people seem to agree that aliases can be used to expand the name of a geographic location, which seems somewhat similar to what I am doing, except names like "Portland, OR" could still be considered a valid name whereas "Twilight video game developer" not so much. So with this knowledge I think I will stop doing this. Should I try and go through my contribution history to remove all of these aliases?

Assuming using aliases to disambiguate item names is not acceptable, are there any plans to make finding items with very common names less tedious than clicking "more" several times? On the "Help:Aliases" page I saw that a search engine upgrade was planned to add "fuzzing searching" - that edit was made four years ago, is this still planned? It seems ideally that descriptions would be added to the search engine. I know that I can do a query if I wanted to find the correct item, but that also seems cumbersome. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rampagingcarrot: I'm not sure if there are any actual policies about this, but I think a disambiguation as an alias would be fine if it seems like a plausible and correctly-spelled Wikipedia article title or redirect; e.g. "Twilight (video game developer)". Jc86035 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Aliases are pretty much useless as disambiguators, not least since they are not for the most part surfaced in search results. The Description field is the place to provide sufficient information to disambiguate - see the first sentence of Help:Description. In the instant case, Twilight's description preumably identifies that they are a video game developer. "Twilight (video game developer)" is not an alternative name for "Twilight"; it is a disambiguator, and I cannot see any support in Help:Aliases for using aliases to disambiguate. Should you go through your contribution history to remove all of these aliases? Yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Aliases affect the search results, descriptions don't - the descriptions help you distinguish the items you're shown, but they don't affect whether the item you want will appear or not. I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be a unique-enough alias which will return an item on the first page of results, so that people don't have to repeatedly load more results every time they want to use an item. - Nikki (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but A) you're 100% wrong about descriptions not affecting search results - try this search, for instance: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=&search=Film+von+Ridley+Scott+%281982%29 or do your own experiments on searching for things found in descriptions; and B) that way lies madness of a couple of different sorts: 1) it is not our business to start coining new aliases for people/things, but to reflect the aliases already used by others and 2) if we are going to invent new aliases to satisfy the plurality of searches that are made, then we must gear up for the countless variants one can conjour up for those people and things: for hyphens instead of parenthesis, for 'game developer'instead of 'video game developer', dev instead of developer, &c &c &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: It looks like there is some confusion about what is meant by "searching". Up until now the way I've looked up items is by typing the item name in the search bar in the top right and looking through the suggested results WITHOUT pressing enter or the question mark first. Then I would click on the suggested result I was looking for, never having reached a search result page. I suspect this is also what @Nikki: was talking about. In my experience, typing parts of the description in the box doesn't show the desired results, while typing the alias does. I never realized that pressing enter gives different results than the suggested results that are shown. I don't know if this is made clear to new users.Rampagingcarrot (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup, autocomplete - which is what I understand the drop-down suggestions are called - pays no heed to descriptions (as far as I know ... which is not terribly far.) But search results do. And I tend to think nothing is made clear to new users; it's rather like rule 1 of Fight Club (Q190050). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Yes autocomplete seems like the correct name. Now that you've shown me that the actual search engine does take descriptions into account, I can see why putting descriptions in the aliases is even less appropriate. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Help:Alias is somewhat outdated so it might not be of much help. If the company is referred to such, I think it is a useful alias.
    --- Jura 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #325[edit]

Instance of ....?[edit]

What would you say The Beatles in the United States (Q5412372) is an <instance of>? - PKM (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What about tour (Q14957229)? --Larske (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say heyday (Q47468023).--Micru (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't. It is correctly marked up, as "facet of the Beatles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Bodies of water connected by watercourse not notable in itself[edit]

If there are two lakes, for example, connected by a river that shows up on maps as a blue streak, but that is not shown on any map with a name or any other form of identification, how would one indicate that the two lakes are connected by a river?

I note that point three of the notability guidelines states that items can be created to fulfill a structural need, so creating an item for this river is an obvious solution, but is it the preferred solution? Is there some property that could be used instead?

If creating a new item is the preferred solution, I imagine the label of the item should follow a regular pattern and be something like "river connecting lake A and lake B", and that some coordinates should be added to the item in order to give it a more firm identification.

This question was also brought up at Property talk:P201#What if the outflow of a lake doesn´t satisfy the notability guidelines?, but does not appear to have been resolved. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I would think you can add an item with description & properties but no label. - Jmabel (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You can, yes, but should you? Probably not. Titles are important. The pattern "river connecting lake A and lake B" reflects common usage, as recommended by Help:Label. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
What to do is precisely the question. connects with (P2789) seems relevant, though via (P2825) is for journeys, and is presumably not relevant here. --Njardarlogar (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Use drainage basin (P4614). Thierry Caro (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

So when the the drainage basin is not notable in itself, I create an item for that instead of for the river(s)? That has the advantage of requiring fewer items for terrain features not notable by themselves, but it does not provide the information about which water bodies are directly linked, nor about whether a water body is upstream or downstream of another. The latter is also a disadvantage of using connects with (P2789), unless there is a qualifier that can provide this information (e.g. using upstream (Q2440529) and downstream (Q15873020)). --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ships[edit]

Is it possible to add a property class to ships of Ship launch date, this is the key disambiguation datum for ships of the same name in en:wiki. Thanks. Broichmore (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I think it is normally done on wikidata via significant event (P793) - see, for instance, HMS Hood (Q220239). You'd have to make a case for a discrete property providing any advantage over the current arrangement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Modeling "History of [Country]"[edit]

We seem to have two approaches to modeling items like Scotland in the Middle Ages (Q7435678) or history of Ireland from 1801 to 1923 (Q1516442). The two models could be characterized as "facets and parts" (see history of Sweden (Q201350) for an excellent example) and "class tree" (see history of the Netherlands (Q238533) and its many subclasses). Most of these are <instance of> history of a country or state (Q17544377) but some are also <instance of> aspect of history (Q17524420).

Do we have a best practice in this area? - PKM (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There's also historical period (Q11514315) as used on Taiwan in the 1940s (Q10915219). Ghouston (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
On Taiwan in the 1940s (Q10915219), I've also added the start and end times as qualifiers. The requirements seem to be a) identify the item as representing a period in the history of something else b) link to the "parent" item c) describe the time period. In b) is it better to link to an item like history of Taiwan (Q378008), or to Taiwan (Q865) directly? Maybe the latter, because for some entities like organizations, there may be no equivalent to history of Taiwan (Q378008). Ghouston (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

--Micru (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) TomT0m (talk) Genewiki123 (talk) Emw (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) —Ruud 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Emitraka (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Bovlb (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC) --Lechatpito (talk) --Andrawaag (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) --ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) --Cmungall Cmungall (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Cord Wiljes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC) DavRosen (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Fractaler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Diana de la Iglesia Jsamwrites (talk) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) --Horcrux92 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) Bamyers99 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Malore (talk) Wurstbruch (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology

  • How do our other ontologists feel? Should "history of Europe" be a <subclass of> "history of the world", or <part of> "history of the world"? There are enough items built both ways that harmonizing them will be a big effort assuming anyone thinks we should do so. I am leaning toward <part of> myself, but I could change my mind. - PKM (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I lean the other way, because wdt:P31/wdt:P279* tends to be the first tool I reach for when wanting to report across items having different P31s (for me, recently, mostly films and airports); and also because there's no expectation that a reciprocal has part (P527) is required. That said, films & airports are not part of a divisible whole in the way that Hof Europe is assuredly part of the HofWorld. That being the case, has part (P527) aside, I don't have a great problem in having a redundant part of (P361). --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
"Part of" seems more natural to me, there's only one "history of the world" or "history of humanity", and I'm not sure what a subclass (or instance) would be. The history of Europe is a part of the history of the world, but it's not a history of the world in its own right. Ghouston (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
But you can say that about any subclass: a part of the definition of any subclass is that it does not contain all of the class. Aviation example: 747-200 is a sublass of 747, but does not contain any of the other 747 place types. Or from the subclass of (P279) definition: "this item is a class (subset) of that item." The History of Europe is a subset of the History of the world. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not really, since a particular plane of type 747-200 is also a 747: the instances of 747-200 are a subset of the instances of 747. The history of the world doesn't have instances like that, the history of Europe isn't the history of the world. An alternative would be to make it an instance of something like "history of a region", like history of Africa (Q149813) is an instance of regional history (Q1802210). Ghouston (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Lab X: Writing Wikidata bots[edit]

Wikidata Lab X en.pdf

Hi, everyone! September 17th we will have the tenth Wikidata Lab. This time the event will discuss how to develop bots on Wikidata. The event is free and open to all, but by limit of vacancies, prior registration is required. If you are near São Paulo, Brazil, please join us! If you can't come, it's fine! There will be live streaming and the presentation will be available at Neuromat's channel on Youtube.

This is the tenth activity of a series of trainings for the integration of the projects Wikidata and Wikipedia. The presentations, photographs and impact reports of the first nine activities are available for consultation in Wikidata Lab I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX, respectively.

The "Wikidata Lab X: Writing Wikidata bots" will occur in the University of São Paulo, on September 17th (Monday), from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm BRT

The presentation and the training will be realized by the wikimedist Mike Peel, in English. The event is offered by CEPID NeuroMat, with support of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

More information: Visit the event page and sign up. Ederporto (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

merge Q55617997 to Q1053441[edit]

"Error: The two items cannot be merged because one of them links to the other using the properties: P1441, P674." I don't know how to deal with that. —— FireFeather (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@FireFeather: If you want to merge them, you'll have to first reconcile Q1053441 being a character present in Q55617997 (and conversely Q55617997 having Q1053441 as a character). Maybe @Valentina.Anitnelav: could help with that... Mahir256 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Links so this is not entirely cryptic: Urashima Tarō (Q55617997), Urashima Tarō (Q1053441), present in work (P1441), characters (P674) - Jmabel (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Why would we want to merge a legend with its principle character? Sounds wrong to me. - Jmabel (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the character and the story should be separate items. I spend a lot of time separating these. See Huon of Bordeaux (Q46951799). - PKM (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
In zhwiki, the article content includes both the story and character, and it seems that no language separates these two into different articles. That why I want to merge them. —— FireFeather (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sitelink zhwiki to the story, which is presumably the more general topic. But just because we don't have a wikipedia article about something doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth a Q-code. - Jmabel (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging zhwiki article contributors @Iokseng, Ws227, Nivekin, Solomon203, Quest for Truth:@Stenvenhe, 林佩錡, Wongpong, Kolyma, 淺藍雪:@Hierro, Isnow, Sdf, Lssrn, Timeandspace:@Mouse.shih, RalfX, 野菜汁酢, Shakiestone, 攻殼機動隊員:@Chiefwei, Kerolf666, 七月鴨, Cbls1911: for clarification. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
As already mentioned by others they should not be merged. If this is an issue concerning interwikilinks I see two possibilities at the moment: You could set a link to a redirect (described at Help:Handling_sitelinks_overlapping_multiple_items#Interwikis) or you could add the link(s) locally at the wikipedia page(s). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a rather frequent question. If the article needs data from two or more items, you need to set the QIDs explicitly.
    --- Jura 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ltd., Inc. in labels for companies[edit]

When adding items for companies I have been using the name given in whatever source I am primarily referencing as the label. Sometimes this source has Ltd. (for British companies) or Inc. (for American companies), and other similar suffixes for other countries at the end of the name; sometimes there is no suffix. If the item for the company already exists but the label has the suffix and the source does not or vice versa, I have been adding the source version as an alias. Is this the correct approach? Rampagingcarrot (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rampagingcarrot: Yes, any region-specific suffixes (such as S.A., AG, plc, etc.) should be moved to aliases, though of course there are some notable exceptions like Apple (Q312). Mahir256 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thank you, I will put names with suffixes as aliases. Do you happen to know what the proper procedure is for "official name" in regards to region-specific suffixes? Or should I ask as a new topic? Rampagingcarrot (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256, Rampagingcarrot: Doesn't enwiki just add "Inc." to disambiguate the article title? I think Apple (Q312)'s English label should be just "Apple", since this is the common name of the company. Jc86035 (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate property proposals[edit]

Can someone explain why we have Wikidata:Property proposal/Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic as a duplicate of Wikidata:Property proposal/Red List status of species (description: "endangerment status of species in the national Red List of the Czech Republic"; and which was, when I commented on it, specific to the Czech Republic? User:Succu, who apparently advised this new proposal, did not explain, when they posted support there. I trust that this is not an effort to bypass the objections and other discussion posted on the former proposal.

@Vojtěch Dostál, Tom.Reding, Faendalimas, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Mr. Fulano, Jura1: from the original discussion. Likewise:

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology
99of9
Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Tubezlob
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Vojtěch Dostál said in the second proposal "abandoning original request at Wikidata:Property proposal/Red List status of species" Thank you --David (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I saw that. It does not explain why the first proposal - with all its discussion - has been withdrawn, and a second, duplicate proposal launched (other than "as advised by Succu"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The first proposal started more or less as a RfC. After some discussion we have now a clear proposal to vote on. Thats the whole story. --Succu (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
"The first proposal started more or less as a RfC." No, it was posted as a property proposal, like many before and since. We don't "vote" on proposals, we discuss them. Note that the standard heading used is "Discussion" ({{int:Talk}}). It appears that your explanation is far from the "whole story". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we vote on property proposals. Preferable voting with remarks and comments which are leadinge sometimes to longer discussions. --Succu (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding aliases from ULAN[edit]

The previous discussion on this subject got bogged down in discussions of user interface and search recall and ended without any definite conclusion. I thought I would have another go at resolving it, focussing on two specific points here.

The Union List of Artist Names (ULAN) is a useful source, but the "additional names" have a number of problems:

  • They are not tagged with any language;
  • Most are not common names for the entity in any language;
  • Many of them are common misspellings or variations in word order;
  • Many of them actually identify related entities instead; and
  • Some of them are marked as being of unknown provenance.

One of the tasks that BotMultichillT (talkcontribslogs) performs is to add all of these additional names from ULAN as English aliases. It does not seem to me that this meets the criteria for aliases.

The bot operator has indicated that the bot will re-add these aliases if other users remove them and that that this is intended behaviour. It's not clear to me that we want bots to always override user decisions or to get into edit wars.

What do others think? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you might want to ping users who work on or with artist items for this discussion. Project chat is not always followed by everybody. That said, I think it is important to note that users are free to add aliases and the bot will not remove any aliases that are added. It just updates the item with missing aliases from ULAN. So it is not true that user decisions are always overidden by the bot. Next the reasons for the bot are clear, namely to improve search for artists and reduce the creation of duplicate items for artists. It is still not clear to me however what your specific objection is besides wanting to ban certain information coming from the ULAN. I guess I don't see the point of your argument. Jane023 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging as requested:

Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Sascha
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
ToJack
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
ajayi adeniyi
Moebeus
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Names User:Zolo
Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Vincent Steenberg
User:Kippelboy
User:Shonagon
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Martingggg
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
User:7samurais
User:mrtngrsbch
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts

I take your point that the bot override is one-way. It allows addition of aliases, but not removals. Nevertheless, it could still lead to edit wars with users trying to follow policy.
My objection here is we have a fairly clear policy on aliases that is not being followed for ULAN import. I agree that making the Wikidata search engine useful is important, not least to avoid duplicates, but it is not the only (or even an explicit) goal of aliases. Importing ULAN additional names into English aliases results in many alias claims that are false according to policy. This is not a purely theoretical concern as this reduces the practical utility of aliases for many purposes, such as building a lexicon to match Wikidata items in text.
So, a specific proposal:
  1. Create a new property for ULAN additional names that allows qualification to reflect the attributes defined in ULAN.
  2. Switch the bot to populating that property instead of aliases.
  3. Augment search to drawn on that property in addition.
  4. Gradually tidy up the errant alias entries.
Bovlb (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As Help:Alias isn't much help in terms of being descriptive of current practice, it would be good to revise it.
    --- Jura 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    Do you have a specific proposal for changing it? If aliases are just to support search then we could throw in anything that might increase recall and let the search ranking deal with precision, but I think I've explained above how I think aliases have other uses beyond search where the current policy is more helpful. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think it would help if the help page would describe current practice. Writing it down would be sufficient. The main point that worries me from what you mention is "Many of them actually identify related entities instead". Do we have samples from Multichill's bot additions for that? Oddly, your proposal doesn't address this.
    --- Jura 07:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    Most aliasses imported from ULAN are okay but there are some outliers which can exasperate people [2]. I already suggested few months ago, it would be pleasant if the bot could keep track of its own edit and therby not undo edits of humans. Adding a small fraction of bad data once is much less problematic than adding it over and over again. --Pasleim (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If BotMultichill[T] is going to add ULAN aliases that are removed from the list of English aliases back to items, it would do well to not just check that they were removed from the English alias list, but also check that those aliases have been moved to the list of aliases for another language—before deciding to add them back to the English alias list—so that those aliases which better fit in the German/French/Italian/etc. alias lists remain in those alias lists only. Mahir256 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The future of bibliographic data in Wikidata: 4 possible federation scenarios[edit]

Mattsenate (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
KHammerstein (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mitar (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Merrilee (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Pharos (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DarTar (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
HLHJ (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Lawsonstu (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Micru (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
JakobVoss (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Abecker (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Kopiersperre (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Dugan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hfordsa (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Runner1928 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete F (talk)
econterms (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sj (talk)
author  TomT0m / talk page
guillom (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
·addshore· talk to me! 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ainali (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Shani Evenstein (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h
PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Elena moz
Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Harshrathod50
 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Mahdimoqri (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Jsamwrites Dig.log Sic19 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Nomen ad hoc Pete F (talk) 99of9 Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals

We had a productive “strategy meetup” at Wikimania with a group of about 20 people, to talk about the future of WikiCite and a roadmap for source metadata in Wikidata more generally. The motivation for this meetup was a set of concerns around scalability and “growing pains” around bibliographic and citation data in Wikidata, as well as the need (that many in the community have expressed) for a clearer goal, value proposition, and scope for WikiCite.
The result is a series of notes fleshing out 4 possible scenarios for the future of bibliographic data as structured data—from a centralized scenario to a fully federated one—discussing their possible risks and benefits at the technical, social, and governance level.
The question these notes try to address is whether Wikimedia should aim to build its “bibliographic commons”, and if so, what it would look like, and where it should live. This document is not a formal proposal or an RfC open for a vote, but a conversation starter to evaluate what type of future makes most sense for this data and the communities and stakeholders that will benefit from it. A shared understanding on what we’re building towards is also going to help us inform the program of the upcoming WikiCite 2018 conference in November (the application process will open in a few days).
If you wish to share your thoughts on these four scenarios, please chime in on this page.--Dario (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

LinkedIn personal profile URL[edit]

It appears that country-specific URL values for LinkedIn personal profile URL (P2035) now redirect to a more standard form; for example:

https://lu.linkedin.com/in/jerome-lulling-75a9811b

redirects to:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerome-lulling-75a9811b/

and

https://fr.linkedin.com/in/brigittelonguet

redirects to:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/brigittelonguet

We could therefore (in the absence of any contrary examples) remodel P2035 as an external ID, with the formatter URL being:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/$1

How can this be achieved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Just add the url to the property as value and it will take care of itself.
    --- Jura 11:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The above response does not answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

script for url format[edit]

Can somebody help us here. Middleware for external URL and display the sources does not work anymore... Regards, Conny (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

Hi - if I understand the problem, I've done this for some other properties via a toolserver script - https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-externalid-url/ - could you clarify exactly what needs to be fixed about the formats though? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

adopted child / adoptive parent : various practices, clarification needed[edit]

Hello all

I'm trying to figure the current state of affairs regarding adopted children and adoptive parents.

adopted child and adoptive parent are instances of kinship, and therefore should be used as values of qualifier type of kinship on the property relative.

Those qualifiers are not used much (yet) but the use often does not respect this rule. The qualifier adopted child is sometimes found on child, and the qualifier adoptive parent on properties father or mother, which somehow makes sense, but may lead to a break of unicity constraint for P22 or P25, in the case where both biological and adoptive father or mother are present in the data. There are even cases where a parent is linked twice, once by father and once as relative/adopted parent.

This figures that the use of those qualifiers need clarification, and maybe the properties father, mother and child themselves. Their current definition don't explicitly restrict their use to biological parenthood, but they don't explicitly include adoption. This point should be clarified, my view being as follows:

  • If only one mother (or father) is asserted, the data are generally agnostic about the fact that she/he is a biological/legal/adoptive parent, and no qualifier should be used generally, although many legal parents are not biological parents, even outside the case of adoption. But the qualifier adopted child/father/mother should be allowed on the properties child/father/mother.
  • If more than one mother (or father) is documented, a qualifier should be used to make distinct the biological and adoptive parent. The biological parent should use the direct property (P22 or P25), the adopted parent being linked as relative with qualifier.

Bvatant (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[edited] : The unicity constraint on P22 and P25 is in fact problematic in case of e.g., homosexual parents. This would need another thread? Bvatant (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your second bullet; there's no good reason why a legal but non-biological parent should be shunted off to relative (P1038) just because a biological parent happens to exist in P22/P25 statements. That said, for better or worse, we do have stepparent (P3448) pointing to stepparent (Q19822352) for its definition, in EN: "non-biological parent or guardian". P3448 is gender-neutral, predicated on the observation that gender can be discovered from their item; spouse (P26) and child (P40) are also not gendered. P22 & P25 are gendered. And it is unclear where a gestational-parent would be fitted in - biological parent does not distinguish between gamete-parent and a surrogate mother.
I agree this is an area that should be improved, possibly in part by redesign or redefinition, and certainly by documentation, but I fear that wikidata torpor will inevitably run us into sand. To start: do we know if there is a documented model anywhere on wikidata from which we can work? Do we know of any ontologies outside of wikidata that might be useful? We surely cannot be the only group working with family relationships in RDF. Can we?--Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree myself completely with my second bullet :-) An alternative is to relax the unicity constraint on P22 and P25, but in case they have more than one value, should be made distinct by qualifiers. In this option, allow "type of kinship" on P22, P25 and P40, with allowed values in subclasses of kinship such as "child type" and "parent type" with values "biological", "legal", "adopted", "gamete-parent", "surrogate" ... and whatever might be invented by genetics wizzards.
Regarding stepparent (P3448) and stepparent (Q19822352), I don't find this definition "non-biological parent or guardian"? This is a more extensive definition than "spouse of parent" (which is the definition I read). Both are different from adoptive parent, who is often BTW another family member (uncle, aunt, grand-parent). Agreement with Jura's below comment.
Regarding other genealogy ontologies in RDF, unfortunately there is not much available. Searching e.g., https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/terms?q=mother&type=property does not yield much. Either very general models such as Proton, or too convoluted ones such as CIDOC-CRM, using extra nodes such as Birth etc.
As for the torpor, well ... the bright side of it is that the use of qualifiers such as type of kinship are still rare in WD, so if a clarification is made now, they all could be curated manually quite quickly. Bvatant (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think P22/P25 is generally used for that, at least for countries were adoptions are considered equivalent. P3448 is for something different (spouse of parent).
    --- Jura 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

An interesting query to figure the use of qualifier type of kinship (P1039) on child (P40)

SELECT DISTINCT ?parent ?type
WHERE {?parent p:P40 [ ps:P40 ?child ; pq:P1039 ?type ].}
ORDER BY ?type

Yields 213 results, with 17 distinct values of ?type. Some are clearly errors to be corrected (I will), such as "grandson" or "mother-in-law" (sic). Other are borderline such as "stepdaughter". "son", "daughter", "adopted child", "illegitimate child" are the most frequent and seem OK to me, although "son" and "daughter" can be derived from the child gender.
Replacing P40 by P25 or P22 yields less than 100 results, which I can look at and curate as necessary. Bvatant (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Bug in Q2130136?[edit]

Per [3], it's confirmed that this station is to be opened its service at 23 Sep, but after changing the date of official opening (P1619) value, it says that The value for $1 ($2) should be in the past, but not before $3., means that there probably have bug that treats that that date as "was in Gregorian 80"?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Liuxinyu970226, it would be *really* useful if you would stop using {{Q}} in subject headers on this page. It is not possible to navigate from the watchlist nor from the page history to the header, since the watchlist & history URLs are https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Bug_in_{{Q|2130136}}? whilst the actual URL is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Bug_in_West_Kowloon_railway_station_(Q2130136)? (or, presumably, whatever the item label is in other languages). It makes it a right pain in the arse to find your threads. Better by far to put the {{Q}} in the body of the posting and, if you can think of no other wording, a plain Q2130136 in the header. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
In answer to your question, if you look at Property:P1619#P2302 you'll see it is not a bug but a feature, which is noted on Property talk:P1619 - "Range from “+0080-00-00T00:00:00Z” to “now”: values should be in the range from “+0080-00-00T00:00:00Z” to “now”. Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist." Meanwhile date of official opening (P1619) is about the date something opened ... past tense. It is not, strictly, for making predictions about future events. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
And, finally, if you delve into the property constraint used, eventually you find Help:Property_constraints_portal/Range#Parameters and Help:Property_constraints_portal/Range#Example_2 which specify and illustrate by example that range constraint (Q21510860) applied in date of official opening (P1619) is designed to enforce a maximum date of 'now' by virtue of its qualifier maximum date (property constraint) (P2311) having a <no value> setting. - i.e. not in the future. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

While it makes sense to forbid dates in the future to avoid data rot - how can be add the fact that a project under construction is set to be finished/opened at a given time? Would we need a new property to make sure that the item gets updated when it is really opened? Which leads to further question - at what step such items becomes an instance of "railway station". When its officially opened? While under construction? When project officially announced? And what about projects which were abandoned before opened, what to use as instance of (P31) for them? Or just using start time (P580) as qualifier set to "no value"? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Download lexeme data[edit]

How can I download the available Lexeme data (i.e. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L7111)? I have been lately working with wikidata json dumps (i.e. latest-all.json.bz2 from https://dumps.wikimedia.org/wikidatawiki/entities/) but the lexemes seem not to be included there. Thanks! --Motagirl2 (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Motagirl2: You can download the entity data for individual lexemes at Special:EntityData/L7111.json, just as for items and properties. Not sure about the dumps though. --Galaktos (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hr.Ms. Rotterdam please merge Q18762973 and Q21619007[edit]

They ar both about the smae ship.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18762973#sitelinks-wikipedia

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21619007#sitelinks-wikipedia

Thx in advance145.129.41.136 14:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2018 (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. Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Help: Vandalism[edit]

A number of properties and items are currently being vandalised. Please check [4]. I have reverted some of them. Please take action. John Samuel 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked that user and it looks like all the edits have been reverted. - Nikki (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of many statements[edit]

It seems the API prevents to remove more than 50 statements of the same property in an item within a single edit. Can this somehow be circumvented? Steak (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you were using wbremoveclaims, did you try wbeditentity? There is a how-to. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

At some (to me random) pages, like Q*s about asteroids, I get a symbol with 2 arrows left of the "Read" button asking me to merge with the chess player Q55229637. There seems to be an unsolved merge request. How can I get rid of that? --Gereon K. (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gereon K.: I don't suppose you have a link to the offending page? (Must be in your browser's history?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: It doesn't appear every time, only twice until now, so it's not in my browser history. A blue round button left of the "Read" button. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gereon K.: Mystery. Hope someone else knows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a feature of the Merge gadget. You have probably hit the Postpone button. I have never figured out how to use it properly. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Areas of Cyprus Republic (de jure)/Areas of Northern Cyprus (de facto)[edit]

Hello. First of all I want to say that I am a Greek Cypriots (Q245794). But I believe that I have Neutral point of view. Sorry about using words like "occupied", "free" etc. It's easier to explain that way.

Some areas in the island of Cyprus are belong to Cyprus (Q229) de jure (Q132555) and also are belong to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) de facto (Q712144).

There is no problem having items for the villages and municipalities of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). We can do the same as any other village or municipality in the planet. They claim that they are a country (even though not recognized), they have their own administrative territorial entity.

For districts we already have separated items. (Please see district of Cyprus (Q59136) and district of Northern Cyprus (Q2603776)).

There are six districts in Cyprus (Q229). Of them:

The parts of that districts that is in north Cyprus, are consisting Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) is divided to 5 districts.

As you can see, these districts do not identify with the "occupied" districts of Cyprus, perhaps with the sole exception of the province of Kyrenia (Girne), without being absolutely sure ... We have a separate item for each district of Cyprus (Q229) and for every district of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681).

At this point, I would like to mention that Cyprus (Q229), although it does not control these areas, continues to have administrations for them. For example, District Administration of Kyrenia. For districts, I have identified only one problem: population (P1082). In Girne District (Q939711) we can write the population as recorded by Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). In Kyrenia District (Q59146) we cannot write the population according to Cyprus (Q229) because the census cannot apply to "occupied" areas. And we cannot write the population recorded by Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) because the two districts are not the same. Especially in other districts there is certainly no match. For example, in Famagusta District (Q59148), Cyprus (Q229) recorded only the "free" areas. For 2011 census that population was 46629. The population of that district (the way Cyprus (Q229) defined it) include people that lives it the area of the district under control of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). But they don’t count them. And we cannot easily counted them because the "relative" Gazimağusa District (Q554671) has not the same area as Famagusta District (Q59148).

The main problem is about municipalities and communities (villages). Cyprus (Q229) elects mayors, municipal councils, community councils for all "occupied" municipalities, has Geographical codes of the Republic of Cyprus (Q55963047) for all of these areas, etc. With always the footnote that concern areas belonging to Cyprus (Q229) but not are controlled by Cyprus (Q229) because of the presence of the Turkish army. Of course, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) also elects mayors, has their own codes etc.

Problems:

And more other problems like:

And more other problems with other properties...

I have asked before how to use de jure and de facto. Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/01#Cyprus places at the north part. No solution found. We can just add two websites in an item without explain what each one is about? We can have two different values for areas? Etc.

I am not sure about any solution. The only I have though:

  • Kyrenia (Q206760): item only about the city. Not informations about municipalities. That way there is no problem, because city history continues regardless of who are living to the city and who are managing. The city has no statutory (legal basis) limits, area, emblem, website, quarters. The municipalities have. The municipalities do not identify with the city, as Limassol (Q185632) is no longer identified with Limassol Municipality (Q28870916). The only problems here are that it is necessary to clarify in which district the city is located (different for Cyprus (Q229) and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681)). Perhaps there are others problems that I did not think.
  • Keryneia municipality: item about Keryneia municipality from its foundation at 1878 as today. It will be the item for the municipality that continues to exist as an entity but with the administration and the residents outside the municipality (considering that for Cyprus (Q229) refugees from Kyrenia and their descendants have electoral rights in that municipality. They are considered voters of the municipality and citizens of the municipality in general, according to Cyprus (Q229)).
  • Girne Municipality: an item for the municipality that undertook the administration of the area in 1974 and which in 1983 became the municipality of the newly established Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681)). It will essentially be the item for the municipality with a year of foundation in 1974.

However, that solution did not solve the problem of the villages. Are we going to have 2 items for each village? It that useful? Again, however, it is not certain that each village is terribly identified as Cyprus (Q229) and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) mean it, even though they have the same name (translated between to Greek and Turkish). I cannot find a solution.

And the problem is even more complicated for semi-"occupied" municipalities with population in both Cyprus (Q229) and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). An example is Nicosia Municipality (Q56037497) (according to Cyprus (Q229)). Part of it is in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681).

Xaris333 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem you describe is not unique. The solution is in essence simple. When you talk about "Territorial and administrative entities", they exist in relation to each other. Actual human settlements are part of either structure. Officials have their office in the entities. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And your solution is...? Xaris333 (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Problem with the Twitch game ID identifier[edit]

As stated in its talk page, Twitch game ID (P4467) is broken as the "[s]paces in [the] game ID need to be escaped to %20 instead of +". If anyone with the permission would be able to correct this, it would be most grateful. Jeluang Terluang (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)