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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
A place to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.

Please use {{Q}} or {{P}} the first time you mention an item or property, respectively.
Other places to find help

On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2022/05.


taxon common name (P1843)[edit]

taxon common name (P1843) is currently very vague and imprecise, just giving lists devoid of any contextual information other than a language and an optional source reference. Names for animals and plants are frequently highly emotive issues, and the system here needs refinement to accomodate this. Names also vary considerably in whether they are in extensive widespread use, or are only very rarely used; no distinction is currently possible. Some ideas for progress:

  • names derived from demonyms or ethnic slurs considered offensive to some or many people (e.g. n*gger, k*ffir, m*ngol, g*psy, sc*tch, squ*w, p*ki, etc.) need a statement to be used as a reason for deprecated rank (P2241).
  • names commemorating persons not, or no longer, considered worthy of commemoration (e.g. slave holders; see Thick-billed Longspur) also need a statement to be used as a reason for deprecated rank (P2241).
  • names with official status (particularly in the native region of a taxon) need an option for setting as a reason for preferred rank (P7452).
  • names in the USA frequently differ from those in the rest of the English-speaking world (not just '-colored' rather than '-coloured', but also numerous others). It would be helpful if these (notably names sourced from USDA PLANTS ID (P1772)) could be entered as language code en-us rather than en, to indicate they are American usage that may not be used elsewhere. This will need a bot task to convert entries already added.
  • rarely used names (particularly archaic names, e.g. sourced from copyright-expired texts) need some form of tagging to indicate they are no longer in widespread use; some sort of "semi-deprecation" (not necessarily pink background, but will not be picked up by e.g. the VN lists at Commons).
  • factually inaccurate or misleading names also need a similar option for tagging, so that those who wish to strive for accuracy can know those names are not accurate.

MPF (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about inaccurate names. There should be a general-purpose "incorrect name" property, not limited to taxons. Though modelling the explanations for why is something incorrect might be challenging.
And I need to ask: by "m*ngol", do you mean "Mongol"? I don't see how that's offensive. It's an endonym. --Tengwar (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: sorry, missed this one - because the term was widely used in the past as a pejorative term for people with Down syndrome (Q47715) - MPF (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. TIL. But do you believe some taxons were named after the offensive meaning as opposed to the more widespread meaning? --Tengwar (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: - very unlikely, I'd think; it's just that this particular spelling is toxic for many people. The more usual endonym spelling 'Mongolian' is widely used (as in e.g. Mongolian Lark (Q2522924) or Quercus mongolica (Q1367359)) and is not considered offensive anywhere (as far as I know!) - MPF (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: I might be mistaken due to my lacking knowledge of English, but isn't "Mongolian something" named after Mongolia and "Mongol something" named after Mongols? I did a quick search and found some uses of the latter, e.g., Mongol epic poetry (Q107473501) or Mongol campaign against the Nizaris (Q92987578). --Tengwar (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there could be utility in defining some qualifiers that indicate if, in a given source, one common name is preferred over another. For example, the Database of Vascular Plants of Canada (Q19544711) lists accepted names in English and French along with other synonyms in English and French (for an example, see http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/7174).

I think using language codes for specific varieties of a language will be fraught with problems. Just because a name is found in an American reference source does not necessarily mean that the usage is restricted to the U.S. For English, there are only Wikimedia codes en-ca, en-gb, and en-us. What about Australian English, New Zealand English, South African English, Singaporean English, etc.? We would need codes for all countries where English is spoken. French only has a specific code for Canadian French and Louisiana French, but not Swiss French, Belgian French, Guinean French, Senegalese French, etc. I think labeling something with a code such as en-ca should only be acceptable if the source specifically states that it is providing a specific language variety of the information (for example, terms found in Dictionary of American Slang (Q48813215) can assuredly be labeled as American English). The U.S. is not the only place in the world that uses "color" vs. "colour." According to this article, "around the world, the American way of spelling is now far more popular."

I also disagree with some of MPF's assumptions about certain words being pejorative, particularly the word "Scotch." The Oxford Lexico website says about this word: "The use of Scotch to mean ‘of or relating to Scotland or its people’ is disliked by many Scottish people and is now uncommon in modern English. It survives in a number of fixed expressions, such as Scotch broth and Scotch whisky. For more details, see Scottish." Under "Scottish" it says "The word Scotch, meaning either ‘of or relating to Scotland’ or ‘a person/the people from Scotland,’ was widely used in the past by Scottish writers such as Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott. In the 20th century, it became less common. It is disliked by many Scottish people (as being an ‘English’ invention) and is now regarded as old-fashioned in most contexts." There's nothing that says the word is pejorative, just disliked by many Scots. The Collins English Dictionary does indicate that "Scotch" is American English and that its use as an adjective is "sometimes offensive." But its use for a plant name just doesn't seem to me to possibly be offensive. It's not putting down Scottish people. Collins notes "The natives of Scotland refer to themselves as Scots or, in the singular, Scot, Scotsman, or Scotswoman. The related adjectives are Scottish or, less commonly, Scots. Scotch as a noun or adjective is objected to except when used of whisky and in established phrases like Scotch egg and Scotch pine. In the United States, Scotch is often used where the Scots themselves, or some Americans of Scottish descent, would prefer Scottish or Scots." I would suggest that "Scotch elm", like "Scotch egg" and "Scotch pine," falls under the category of established phrases that are not objectionable. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPF's suggestion that name statements should be marked as deprecated because of actual/supposed/conceivable offence is to propose a misuse of deprecation. Deprecation is for statements that were never true. WD does not deprecate data based on "highly emotional" reactions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@UWashPrincipalCataloger, Tagishsimon: thanks for your replies. I would certainly support creation of en-au, en-in, en-nz, en-sg, en-za, etc. language codes; I find it strange that they have not been long ago.
Of usage of 'Scot*h', I suggest you visit Scotland and ask people there, how they feel about Americans telling them they must accept American renaming of their native plants for them (and that goes for any other European species where the US naming authorities like USDA and ITIS have changed the native name to something different): it is regarded as [cultural] imperialism, and greatly detested as an insult to their intelligence, the treatment of native rights with contempt. The term may not be pejorative, but it most certainly causes offence when it is suggested (as wikidata sadly now does) to be correct usage. This is a fact, and needs to be recorded in wikidata, for the data to be accurate. If deprecation is not appropriate, then some other form of notation is needed, to indicate that what may be acceptable in some areas, is not in others. Consider for example a German author writing an article in English about Ulmus glabra for a scientific paper, and wanting to mention the English name: how will he know that Wych Elm is the correct name to use, and that 'Scot*h elm' is considered offensive by many, if wikidata provides no clues when he turns to it? This sort of information is very important, and needs to be recorded.
Of the Daily Mail article cited above, a reminder that en:wp banned use of the Daily Mail several years ago as being an unreliable source. This article fits exactly into the sort of "sensationalism and flat-out fabrication" that they were banned for. I certainly would not rate their claim above as trustworthy. - MPF (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think several of the reasons suggested for deprecation (or it's opposite) are a matter of opinion, not fact, and that can sometimes be inferred from the source itself.

Notes inserted below each point; @Plantdrew, UWashPrincipalCataloger: - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether a name is archaic is an opinion (when is the cutoff? an arbitrary date is an opinion), and archaicness can be inferred if the source for a common name was published long ago.
  • It may be visible on wikidata if the source is cited with a publication date long ago, but it is not visible (a) if the source is secondary, and more importantly, (b) in details exported from wikidata to other wiki projects - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That McCown's longspur is deprecated can be inferred from it only being sourced to older versions of IOC, not the most recent (and there is a movement to rename all birds with eponyms, regardless of whether the namesake is worth of commemoration; if that succeeds do we really need to flag some eponymous names as having an unworthy (opinion again) namesake?
  • From which, I conclude that it is reasonable to tag names generally as deprecated, if they are only used in an older version of a source? - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official" status? Who decides that? A government or language academy? A international learned society? A regional learned society? What if a government and international learned society disagree on an "official" common name; will multiple names be flagged as "official"? Picking just one is an opinion. If somebody knows that certain governments or learned societies are in the habit of designating "offical" common names, that can be inferred by having that entity as a source for the common name (admittedly, many people don't know which entities are in the habit of designating "official" common names)
  • It 'just is'; disagreement like you clearly want, just doesn't happen. You're quibbling to try to discredit the near-universal UK concept of one English name being correct, and others incorrect. It's how we do things here. Much the same as formal scientific names, one correct, others invalid synonyms. Many/most other countries in Europe are the same; see e.g. the French wiki page nom normalisé; read it, understand it, and stop trying to apply American concepts of naming ("every vernacular name is of equal status, regardless of its source") to everyone. Wikidata is international, and not the sole preserve of US ideas and concepts. To exclude UK concepts of naming, is contrary to the wiki community ideals of inclusiveness; I, like at least some other UK editors I know, have felt very unwelcome at times on wiki projects for not wishing to submit to US supremacy in ideas and concepts. That should not be happening. - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will qualify the above, by adding that not everyone in UK holds with these ideas; some prefer the US styles. But equally, the converse is also true, many in US (e.g. American Ornithological Society (Q465985)) adhere to more European concepts of right and wrong in vernacular names. Ditto, CNN (Q48340), in their famous 'Facts First' tweet pointing out that correct naming matters. - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even in America, you must surely accept that not all vernacular names are of equal validity or status; the policy at en:wp of treating them so is ludicrous. For one example, see white spruce, listing it as "a common name for several species of spruce" without any qualification at all, despite it being the de facto universal standard name for Picea glauca, and virtually never used for either of the other two (likely only as misidentifications). Wikidata should not follow this sort of nonsense; we very badly need some form of distinguishing between widespread, and very minor, uses of names. Without it, lists of names used become worthless, as they become without meaning if the same name is given to multiple taxa. It needs some way of tagging rarely-used names as 'low importance', so that while they can still be found by wikidata's search, they are not automatically exported to other wikimedia projects where they are likely to cause confusion. - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factually inaccurate? Again, a matter of opinion in deciding what a name accurately refers to in the first place. Is it inaccurate to use the name "lily" for plants formerly, but not currently classified in the family Liliaceae (or should "lily" be restricted only to members of the genus Lilium, let alone any other former/current members of the Liliaceae). The "official" name for plants in the genus Phormium, according to MPF's favorite source, the BSBI, is "New Zealand flax". Phormium isn't at all closely related to "true flax". MPF, get the BSBI to change that before you start complaining about: "Wollemi pine", "prairie dog", "jellyfish", or "water lily" (none of the people that common names are supposed to serve have any clue why the last is sometimes written as "water-lily"; pedants sticking hyphens into common names is not actually helpful). Plantdrew (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted that BSBI are not perfect in all of their choices, but overall, their list is widely (close to universally) accepted in UK, and should be followed at least for English names of European native species. Since Phormium is not a European species anyway, BSBI's name is of low relevance; better to follow New Zealand usage, where (as with other NZ endemic plants), the strong trend is to adopt native Maori names into English (in the case of Phormium, 'Harakeke') to remove the misleading names imported by settlers. As for your remark "pedants sticking hyphens into common names is not actually helpful" - that is your opinion, which I find demeaning and offensive, and many (including leading US authorities like American Ornithological Society (Q465985), United States Forest Service (Q1891156), and others) would disagree very strongly with. Sorry, but your turn for not being helpful. - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have a discussion about whether to record important information, we should look at the sources you could cite for that important information. Having discussions about who's worthy of commemoration within Wikidata should be avoided as much as possible.
To the extend that there is one English name that's better than others, "best rank" is the way we would label that name and not deprecation. ChristianKl
@ChristianKl: - that is certainly a good idea, but as mentioned above, we also need the means to 'half-hide' names that are worse than others. Otherwise, exports from wikidata to other wikimedia projects become excessively cumbersome and increasingly worthless with huge long lists of very rarely used vernacular names that only serve to confuse and mislead users. - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: I don't consider names to be worthless, even if they are not in widespread use anymore. Such names were in use at some point. When I find some weird name in an older book (or new book using stylized language), it's useful to be able to find the e.g. plant by that older name. I do see some value in marking names as outdated or offensive, but I wouldn't "half-hide" them. Other projects can either not import/process outdated/offensive names at all or import them with the "outdated" or "offensive" qualifiers.
@Tengwar: - I agree it would be useful to be able to find a plant by an older name; what's at issue, is some way of indicating to users that it is an older name (or in any other way inappropriate), that is unlikely to be understood, if they used it elsewhere outside of wikidata. How would you suggest doing that? - MPF (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But of course "outdated" is an opinion. It might even be outdated in one region, but not in another region. "Offensive" can be even more of an opinion, depending on the name. Is "wild ass" offensive? Offensiveness can also increase or decrease over time as words shift meanings. There will be arguments and edit wars about all that. It might be better to try to derive some of it programmatically. For example if a name was marked as named after (P138) instance of (P31) human (Q5) and the human in question is marked as someone you consider evil (e.g. slave owner, Confederate soldier, Z (Q111103866) supporter), you can consider the name to be offensive. Same if the name contains a word that you consider offensive.
And I see that you marked "McCown's Longspur" as deprecated. I don't think deprecation is the correct way of modelling offensiveness. Instead, I marked the name as has quality (P1552) offensive (Q76500861). --Tengwar (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: thanks; is this the best route to follow with other offensive names? - MPF (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes, until a better solution appears. It's not perfect, but better than deprecation. Marking names in this way should make it possible to find them in the future and mark them in a better way. --Tengwar (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! What would be the best ways to mark other names, such as archaic, or inaccurate / misleading, vernacular names please? Presumably 'has quality' again, with what qualities? - MPF (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also doubtful about whether this is the best place for the discussion. Wikiproject Taxonomy would likely be better. ❪❫ 10:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to its being moved there, if that is generally felt to be the best place - MPF (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: I don't think you should add has quality (P1552) offensive (Q76500861) without any source. Doing original research about what's offensive and what isn't on Wikidata is a recipe for drama. ChristianKl❫ 14:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl Previously that entire statement was marked as deprecated by @MPF. Un-deprecating it and marking as offensive was an improvement. I agree that the current state still needs to be improved. For example, currently a source for the offensiveness cannot be added, as Wikidata does not support adding sources to qualifiers. If you can improve the current state further, please do so. --Tengwar (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: Sources apply to the full statement. You can apply the source to the statement. Without a source I would suggest to simply remove it. If MPF wants to do something with it, that process should start with a source.
Adding ways to model to replace deprecation isn't an improvement because there's a chance that the bad way to model it will be copied by people to other parts of Wikidata. ChristianKl❫ 00:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask for clarification. Do you want to:
  1. temporarily keep this way of modelling offensiveness (but with added source) and devise a better way of modelling it later, or
  2. immediately get rid of this way of modelling offensiveness and devise a better way of modelling it later?
Because the first part of your post suggests the former, but the second part of your post suggests the latter.
@MPF: If you have sources for the offensiveness of "McCown's Longspur" name of Thick-billed Longspur (Q263740), please add them to the statement about that name. --Tengwar (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: - reference here. I'm not sure how best to add it to the statement. - MPF (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF, @ChristianKl: Source added. Please improve if needed. --Tengwar (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: Thanks! Any suggestions for suitable tagging for other rarely-used 'uncommon' names? The whole system here remains a mess with so many names added as "common" names which are not in common use at all, but included because they have been used once, somewhere, maybe a long time ago, in a citeable source. The result is, wikidata users can't know easily which name is the right one to use. MPF (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Temurning oʻzidan oldingi shajarasi[edit]

<Amir Temurning oʻzidan oldingi shajarasi. (Q111870802)>

Tarix  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravshanbek Tohirov (talk • contribs) at 06:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Q91313507[edit]

user:Benedifan has edited Karolina Protsenko (Q91313507) replacing Ukrainian to Russian on name in native language (P1559), native language (P103) and languages spoken, written or signed (P1412). I have checked some other people from Ukraina and there is Ukrainian instead of Russian, for example Andriy Shevchenko (Q41244). Why? --Gatto bianco (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no source for name in native language (P1559) and native language (P103), so I deprecated the values; for languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) I found one source. --Epìdosis 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatto bianco, @Epìdosis The history of this item shows that a lot of statements were removed from it. I think we should restore them and, if they have no source, mark as deprecated with not been able to confirm this claim (Q21655367) as the reason. We should also contact the users who removed statements and ask them to use deprecation in the future. What do you think about it? --Tengwar (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time-consuming, but probably best solution. --Epìdosis 07:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to completely remove disputed unsourced statements, especially for living persons. Otherwise anything stated without source by anybody could stay forever even if completely false. See also Wikidata:Living people. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dipsacus fullonum: Parts of that linked policy are surprising. I was told that incorrect statements should not be removed, but deprecated instead, as marking statements as deprecated has meaning. For example having a deprecated statement that someone speaks language X (with a reason for deprecated rank (P2241) incorrect value (Q41755623)) means that this person does not speak language X. This is both informative and prevents readding of the incorrect statement by someone thinking it's correct. Yes, it stays forever, but it stays explicitly marked as false, so everyone knows it's false.
That policy says that challenged unsourced statements "may be subject to removal", so I guess there is some leeway. But I still find that policy surprising. I can understand that some statements could be used to slander a person, so I understand their removal instead of deprecation - they are vandalisms and unlikely to be readded by well-meaning users. But normal statements like language spoken? I see no negatives (and few aforementioned positives) of leaving them deprecated.
BTW since she speaks Russian and English, it's very likely that her native language is Russian, unlikely that it's English and impossible that it's Ukrainian. --Tengwar (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tengwar: I agree that sourced incorrect statements should be retained, but deprecated. That is useful if someone else intend to use the same source. But I see no point in retaining unsourced and challenged statements. Without a source it has no value and can possibly be vandalism, opinions from any user, true, false or anything else. If a user want to retain the statement, they should provide an available source. If you deprecate it with reason for deprecated rank (P2241) incorrect value (Q41755623), that is again a claim without source. I think that claiming something to be false without source is just as bad as claiming it to be true without source. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk)

KaustLibraryBot[edit]

@Trilotat: I have seen edits by KaustLibraryBot (talkcontribslogs) and it added hundreds of items with bad titles. The bot added master thesis with labels as "Surname, Name" and descriptions as "Title". Then it linked the created items to the ORCID items of the authors violating single-value constraint (Q19474404). What could be done here? Redefine items? Throw it away all? — Draceane talkcontrib. 11:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I loathe doing their work for them. But noticing that they did add items for authors that also include the ORCID, it appears the work here would involve moving the title from description to label, adding instance of (P31), and removing ORCID on the work. Maybe someone will have mercy on these items. Karl Oblique (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, what to do? Is there any bot operator who would fix these items? Otherwise it would be better to nominate all for deletion, I suppose. — Draceane talkcontrib. 11:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling notifications for bots[edit]

Hello! Echo notifications for bots (accounts with a bot flag) take up a lot of database space, and seem pointless - bots don't check their notifications. We are discussing disabling / discarding such notifications in T308084. Do you see any potential problems with that? Tgr (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it's annoying whenever I do log in as a bot to see a million notifications. I'd prefer them off. BrokenSegue (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes do check my bot's notifications. The useful ones are alerts (red counter) of reverts and mentions (and I imagine notifications of someone trying to steal your account are important, too). I receive very few of them every week and I would like to keep them, because they make me be aware of its potential malfunction. In fact, I have them sent to my email inbox, so perhaps they don't have to be kept in the database for a long time.
Next, the bot receives plenty of "linked to created page (item)". I think this is the source of 99% notifications in the database, because we do "linked" data here. (I'm not sure, but maybe they are enabled by default?) I used to check these, because sometimes I would find there insertion of wrong data (or vandalism), but I don't have capacity to do this anymore. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"‎Added a language link to connect pages"[edit]

What is the point of autogenerated description "‎Added a language link to connect pages"? How is this different than "‎Added link to [jawiki]:" and why was it even created? Example. What it has to do with ENWP? Eurohunter (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: I believe this is a new feature that automatically links articles when they are translated using the Content translation tool. In this case, the JAWP page was translated from ENWP. Good thing IMO. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahl de Vautban: I think there should be note about translation. Eurohunter (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering about Descriptions in Wikidata objects. I have seen and improved a lot of descriptions that have seemed too narrow and lacking. I'm curious where they show up for "normal" users. I see Wikidata-descriptions being shown on mobile Wikipedia quite prominently under the article title, but not on "normal" Wikipedia - are there any reason for Wikidata descriptions not being shown/used on Wikipedia? Where else are Wikidata descriptions being used - within Wikipedia and elsewhere? It would be nice to know, to motivate further improvements :) Robertsilen (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They show up in VIAF listings for authors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

WP20Symbols MediaWiki light background.svg

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 17 May 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 86217494304. Dial by your location.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, Italian, Polish; also, only at the first meeting: Farsi, Vietnamese; only at the second meeting: Portuguese, Spanish, Russian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

located in time zone transitive instead of data duplication[edit]

I noticed we have a lot of data duplication for located in time zone (P421). It's used over 2 million times! I put a proposal to clean that up at the talk page of the property. Input (over there) appreciated. Multichill (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Templates[edit]

Please tell me how it works? I do not fill all the fields and there is an endless load.--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use a tool where the author didn't bother to write documentation. You can find the same functionality in pywikibot. The best way to use pywikibot is from PAWS. Be aware that unlike other scripts, this one is fully automatic (doesn't ask for confirmation) so it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot with it, so be careful. Also the script expects named parameters so I don't think it will work with numbered parameters unless you first do a search&replace job. Infrastruktur (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the embedded documentation in the source for harvest_template.py it has a number of parameters. Most important is -always which can be set to False to be able to confirm changes. This is useful for doing a test. Infrastruktur (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrastruktur. I wanted to export the names on Polish for villages, they are in Ukrainian Wikipedia (Link to the article) parameter "оригінальна назва". Also for US villages. Thanks for the answer. Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HarvestTemplates does not work for me anymore for about one week:

--M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today HarvestTemplates worked for me again. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M2k~dewiki, Please tell me what fields should supplement and what exactly should I write there? Look at the screen. Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Takhirgeran Umar: in HarvestTemplates you need to fill in the property ID of the property you want to add the harvested value from the template in the wikidata object. If there is no such property, you might use QuickStatements (Help:QuickStatements) instead, where you als can add descriptions, labels, sitelinks, for all languages, ... as well as properties + values. The statements for quickstatement could be prepared for example in Excel/OpenOffice/LibreOffice or any scripting language for example. One advantage of HarvestTemplates over pywikibot is that HarvestTemplates checks for constraints (format constraint, duplicate constraint, ...), while pywikibot does not care about constraints for a given property. My own examples for HarvestTemplates and PetScan can be found at User:M2k~dewiki/Tools/Enrich_Objects. Under Predefined Queries other examples for HarvestTemplates can be found. In HarvestTemplates I would rather use a category + depth instead of a manual list. In some cases, I also use external scripts to get information from Infoboxes and prepare statements for QuickStatements. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi colleague, thanks for the answer @M2k~dewiki Look, it almost happened, How to make the text in brackets not added "Drochlin (województwo śląskie)"? It must be so "Drochlin". He took the name not from the parameter. Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Takhirgeran Umar: I have never used it so far, but there are some "Modify values" fields in HarvestTemplates. You might use "regex search value" and/or "regex replace value". The regular expression to remove the parentheses and the string between could be something like this:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10295637/regex-remove-parentheses-from-string

For example:

Another option would be to prepare the statements with Excel/OpenOffice/LibreOffice or any scripting language and add the info using QuickStatements. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thank you very much! Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a qualifier for product code or model?[edit]

I understand that wikidata entries are often very precise and specific. But is there a way to add product code or model number as a qualifier? I understand that wikidata entries are often very very specific. But some stuff is on the more obscure end and isn't well documented.

What brought this up: I was adding tags to an image I uploaded and was a bit stymied when adding structured data. The image depicts several soldiers from US Army 25th Infantry Division. One has an M4 carbine with an ACOG on it. So I added "Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight" in the structured data under "depicts". For good measure, I wanted to add that it's the TA31 model but found there wasn't a qualifier for model number.

In this case, should I just add a new wikidata entry "Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight, model TA31"? It just seems.....excessive. Cause even within that, there's still dozens more types, like TA31-C-100371 is coloured OD Green and has a green crosshair while the TA31-D-100308 is coloured grey and has a red chevron. And this is just one model they offer to say nothing of the TA01, TA648, TA02, etc.

I'm just unsure how wikidata usually handles this kind of thing.Jasonkwe (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that WD does handle this sort of thing routinely; I don't think it tends to go very far down company-product-model-variant paths. So three options: create new items as deep as you like, such that you can use the granular item with depects; or else bend a free-text qualifier such as named as (P1810) - one of the aliases of which is "established as" - to specify the variant details that qualify the model item; or give up on using structured data to depict the variant. From an RDF point of view, the first of these options works best, but it's slightly in tension with concerns about loading heaps of cruft into WD. Perhaps the best advice is, if you're going to do it - create new items - do it well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. I like the "named as" idea. I definitely don't want to unnecessarily clutter things up and I know that server space and bandwidth for wiki servers isn't free.
The reason I was trying to make it work was that I don't want to break the system by not having applying the correct structured data labels to an image but I also want to leave a note for anyone looking in the future that this is the specific model being depicted. I know the frustration of trying to find a CC licensable image but if the item depicted isn't the main focus of the image (like the image is "101st Airborne soldier practicing room clearing at Ft. Drum" and I'm making a note of what model PEQ laser sight is on the rifle), then I wouldn't specifically mention the laser sight in the image's description. But if someone was looking for a CC licensable image to use in an article on that laser sight, then I'd like them to be able to find that image and confidently caption it "LA-5C/PEQ mounted on a 101st Airborne soldier's rifle" for use in their article's page.
It's just slightly infuriating because with some of these government contract items, the manufacturers often don't keep an updated page on certain items (especially if they're older or discontinued). So it's tough for a wiki editor to accurately identify or use an image if some of the labels aren't specified precisely. Anyway, thanks for the advice!! Jasonkwe (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Is redirect[edit]

Is there a template with function "[QID] is redirect" T/F -- or could it be created? Extra features that I think useful: "if redirect, style in italics; optional add target QID.-DePiep (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recall adding this functionality to Module:Wikidata [1]. Not sure whether the template was actually implemented. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Though I think it is not about the datamodel (item, properties), but more site-oriented.
Example: arsenic (Q21060492)arsenic (Q871). en:Template:Is redirect. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found: Module:IsRedirect, Module:Redirect (target page).
✓ Done DePiep (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inverse item for P737[edit]

What should be the inverse item for influenced by (P737) (influence on)? Geagea (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Geagea: Most properties don't have inverses here (and shouldn't for good data management reasons). Inverses of property relations can be obtained easily with SPARQL or with Pasleim's "derivedstatements" script (there may be something else for this now too?). ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was about using the info in the template. If 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' influenced by 'M'. Then 'M' influence on (or influence over) 'X', 'Y' and 'Z'. Geagea (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see for example Fyodor Dostoyevsky Q991. we can only write about the characters that he was influenced by but not the characters he influenced. Effib (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geagea, Effib: This sounds like an issue with mediawiki (and Lua/Templates), not Wikidata per se. In particular see the wishlist request here. There are several Phabricator tickets related to this; however it has not yet been worked on as far as I can see, and was only around #90 on this year's list as far as supporting votes. So if this is important for you maybe it would be helpful if you could drum up more supporters to get it done?? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The particular ticket talks about reducing properties. But we already have (maybe "opposite" is better wording), for Example
doctoral advisor (P184) and doctoral student (P185)
has part or parts (P527) and part of (P361)
student (P802) and student of (P1066)
capital (P36) and capital of (P1376)
etc. How we can reflect it meanwhile. Geagea (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DerivedStatements is now available as a gadget that can be activated in the user preferences, under the gadget tab. I love this gadget! Fjjulien (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fjjulien thanks. seems to be usfull. Geagea (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

latest version of wikidata ontology[edit]

Hi, I need help. I am doing comparison between two different Data models (RDF vs Property graph) and main source i am using wikidata. For my thesis work I need wikidata ontology latest version. I am facing struggle to find the latest version of the ontology of wikidata. Can you please send me the link where i can found the latest version of wikidata. I have found the older version of wikidata from here https://github.com/mkroetzsch/wda/blob/master/wikidata-ontology.owl but it is nothing i have import this wikidata older version ontolgy in protege and it is almost nothing. Can you help me to find the latest version of the wikidata ontology?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hina Shahazad (talk • contribs) at 12:53, May 16, 2022‎ (UTC).

Interesting stuff. The owl-hunt eventually led me to Gerrit, which is mirrored on Github too. There is more info here. Infrastruktur (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hina Shahazad: I'm not sure you'll find anything useful published as an OWL ontology for Wikidata; the SPARQL query service does not do any inferencing so I suppose OWL wasn't deemed particularly useful here. The documentation on the Wikidata RDF format used in dumps is linked under Wikidata:RDF, in particular see this mediawiki page. That page does have an "Ontology" section listing the classes and predicates used in the RDF dumps. Within Wikidata the term "ontology" is more often used to refer to the class hierarchy for Wikidata items themselves, which is at a higher level of abstraction than the ontology for the RDF dumps. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hina Shahazad: The current version of the file you found is at https://wikiba.se/ontology (it’s a combination of the one Infrastruktur linked with the WikibaseLexeme ontology and possibly a bit more). That said, as ArthurPSmith pointed out, this might not be the ontology you’re looking for; it describes how different parts of the Wikibase RDF export link to each other (a wikibase:Statement has a wikibase:rank with one of these three values, /prop/P123 URIs link to statement nodes, etc.), but not the ontology of the data inside Wikidata (humans have instance of (P31) human (Q5), driving side (P1622) is one of the two items left (Q13196750) or right (Q14565199), etc.). Perhaps Help:Property constraints portal or Wikidata:Schemas are also helpful? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #520[edit]

Recent Changes for a certain language[edit]

Is there any way to set the Recent Changes to show the changes that are related only to a certain language? --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I specify the unit in a list of properties?[edit]

The WikiProject Cultural venues has lists of properties in which we've attempted to provide examples from items in the cultural sector. Two of these properties are properties for which units are optional: maximum capacity (P1083) and area (P2046). I would like the example column to display the right unit for each example-object, but I do not know how to code this. I would appreciate some help. Fjjulien (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Call for papers: Wikidata workshop at ISWC 2022[edit]

Dear colleagues,

Please find here the link to the Call for Papers for the scientific Wikidata workshop at ISWC 2022. Papers are due on July 29, and the workshop takes place on October 24, online. We look forward to your submissions. https://wikidataworkshop.github.io/2022/

Cheers, Ls1g (talk)

Open Historical Map[edit]

Hi, I would like to add a OpenHistoricalMap identifier to Seigneurie Saint-Armand (Q25857860) historical location, could someone be kind enough to create the property. thx --Yanik B 14:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YanikB: There already exists OpenHistoricalMap relation ID (P8424) - is this what you're looking for? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valentina.Anitnelav: Yes, thx ! --Yanik B 10:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a wiki web page for creating a auto-biography in wiki page[edit]

Kindly requesting to share the steps to create a wiki page for sharing auto-biography of any person.

Project chat - a keyword which predominantly every computer server and system like to own for handling automated service requests. Wikidata - project chat will be appreciated efforts to evolve as a great application to help across varied industries to find the factful information with the search. The project chat by wikidata may keep connected the wikidata user more intact towards gaining actual data that Wikipedia can support to great extend.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2401:4900:3604:d5b5:2435:784d:15f2:56bd (talk • contribs) at 13:44, May 18, 2022‎ (UTC).

  • Your comment makes little sense to me, but perhaps there is a language barrier here. You could try one of the other language versions of Project Chat (see top of page). If you are asking about how to create or edit a page about a living person here, see Wikidata:Living people. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation défense publique thèse de doctorat sur le mouvement Wikimédia[edit]

Bonjour à tous.

La défense de ma thèse de doctorat portant sur le mouvement Wikimédia est fixée au vendredi 17 juin à 17 h 30 à Louvain-la-Neuve.

Tous les membres de la communauté Wikimédia sont les bienvenus.

Voici le lien vers la page d'information et d'inscription : https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Sujet:Wvtdl418nfnoxnif

Belle fin de journée ! Lionel Scheepmans Contact Désolé pour ma dysorthographie, dyslexie et "dys"traction. 08:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofron - male given name[edit]

SOFRON and SOFRON I think there is no reason for two values. Sofron has no other pronunciation in the Ukrainian language. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are invalid. You will need to provide the number like this {{Q|1234}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be Sofron (Q20088032) and Sofron (Q112053604) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged them for you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

kidney (Q111907436) and kidney (Q9377)[edit]

Somebody made this wikidata items weird. This should be returned but I have no idea how to do it. I think somebody made new item for ruwiki: Почка человека. --LR0725 (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is weird about them? Infovarius has been working on these items — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've looked into this a bit more and I agree something is not right. Q9377 was relabelled (in English) from kidney to human kidney and a new item was created for kidney. It would have been better to create the new item for human kidney. Now there are a lot of duplicated identifiers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@D6194c-1cc, Infovarius: I am intending to revert the changes to kidney (Q9377). Until 8 May this item was a general item for kidney - English description "internal organ in most animals, including vertebrates and some invertebrates" but you have repurposed it to "human kidney". This is inappropriate - items should never be repurposed. If an item for "human kidney" is missing, then you should have created a new item for it rather than repurposing an existing item. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wikidata items for the Human kidney and the Vertebrate kidney (or just Kidney) are not the same. The new wikidata item was created for the kidney of vertebrates. All verkebrates have kidneys, not only human or mammalians (even the primitive fish). Human kidney is item a deriviative of Kidney item. A kidney can one of three major forms: pronephros, mesonephros and metanephros. The human kidney is the metanephros, which is the most complex kidney type. And human kidney belongs to the mammalian kidney type, which is only one of the three kidney types in amniotes and it evolutioned in parallel with the bird kidney type. Previously the kidney item was about the metanephros kidney form of mammalians, not about the vertebrate kidney, which can be different types and forms. You cannot merge them again. And the Kidney article from English wikipedia must be transformed to the human kidney, because it describes only human/mammalian kidney (and it makes confusion because it doesn't says about it). Separate article was made for the vertebrate kidney to describe all kidney forms and types. And separate article would be made for the mammalian kidney too, since there are a lot of information about it in open access. Please do not do any hasty actions before you'll understand the problem. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is you who is not understanding. Yes, I fully agree we should have separate items for "kidney" and "human kidney". The existing item Q9377 was about "kidney". It is incorrect to change the purpose of this item to "human kidney". I hope that is clear now! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco (Q1028) - moved from "Request a query"[edit]

Hello,

Could you please remove the last two modifications to this page? This contributor https://m.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:%D8%A7%D9%84_%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B9&redlink=1 makes an Arabist POVP by adding "Arab-Islamic" while the country defines itself as "Arab-Berber". Thank you.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by YusAtlas (talk • contribs) at 12:39, 20 May 2022‎ (UTC).[reply]

This does not seem problematic so I won't revert. But you are welcome to undo that edit and explain why in the summary — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is best: no information, or wrong information?[edit]

Hi to all, I've been contributing to Wikidata from time to time, usually tidying up items that I stumble on while working on the Italian Wikipedia. But I would say I'm still quite a newbie here.

This recent discussion that left me puzzled. I had found out that the information "state of use = in use" had been automatically added to lots of Italian railway stations, without anyone actually checking if they're actually in use or not. (It has been added to stations which are still only at a planning stage, to stations which are actually in use, and to stations which have been closed a long time ago.)

Is this right? The other user seems to defend such an approach.

I would personally prefer no information to be added in such a way, because it actually degrades the quality of Wikidata - from items with missing information, to items with wrong information (which is clearly worse, to me.)

As I've never been involved in massive editing, maybe I'm missing something. What do you think? --Fabio Bettani (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not be adding a statement unless there is some evidence that it is true. This is so obvious that I'm surprised to find myself typing this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same. @Bouzinac:, "I prefer to fill up and clean down rather than to add one per one as it is impossible to check one by one and hopefully it's a collaborative database" is really not good. You knowingly adding junk data, and hoping that someone will clear up your mess, is thoroughly objectionable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find your remarks a bit rude. There are plenty of mass edits of different sources of different editors and they can come with some typos or errors, of course! One that always awe me is that harvest templates can add false date of official closure (P3999) eg that edit https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q698837&oldid=734677624#P3999 which hadn't been noticed for some years, which made suppositions that station was out of service.
Edit a database always need to cross data, and check inconsistencies, query and refine data. Query and refine data, again. And we are not alone, hopefully.
Otherwise, we should ban mass edit and permit only manual edits... Bouzinac💬✒️💛 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poor edits by other tools or editors does not excuse poor edits by yourself. Please do not add any statements that you are not able to verify. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget-DragNDrop[edit]

I tried the tool and it's very useful. But noticed that there is no attribution (in the edit summary), at least, from which wikipedia the info taken and which reversion. Geagea (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ for synonyms[edit]

At the risk of opening a major discussion (e.g. see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/taxon_synonym_string), I was wondering what to do about synonyms like Manis gigantea vs Smutsia gigantea. In particular, I noticed that the Manis gigantea item contains information about the NCBI identifier for Smutsia gigantea, but the Smutsia gigantea item does not contain any NCBI identifier. Should Q20085878 duplicate properties such as the NCBI identifier? Or (more controversially), should there be only a single item for the taxon? Either way, this seems like if would be a good FAQ for this project, if there is anywhere to put such a thing? HYanWong (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking definitions, not recreating them[edit]

Sorry, I am a newbie. But I noticed a very flawed description of "cartoon" Q1416517 where in the record there is a link to the Getty AAT. When there is a link to a controlled vocabulary, why isn't that definition automatically linked/displayed/used?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjpw99 (talk • contribs) at 18:54, May 20, 2022‎ (UTC).

Well, fundamentally, nothing happens unless someone does it. Feel free to improve the description. One issue with the Getty description is, however, that they claim copyright for them, as far as I can tell. I also don't quite see the difference in the definitions: "Refers to full-size preparatory drawings made for the purpose of transferring a design to the working surface of a painting, tapestry, or other large work." (Getty) vs "life-size drawing on cardboard, used as a design for an artwork". I would even guess that the latter already is an attempt to rephrase the text from Getty. Karl Oblique (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]