Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat

Add topic
Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata:Project chat (Scots))
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by Vicarage in topic truncated image names with filetype changed


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

what if an item is a disabiguation page in one wikipedia, but a real article in another

[edit]

Battle of Ypres (Q11156704) has 28 wikipedia links. The English one is a disambiguation page, as course it has lots to say about each battle in separate articles, but I can imagine that minor wikis might merge the details into one page. Should we have instance of (P31) of both Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) and battle (Q178561)? I've always thought these pages should be minimalist, but what if an external source also only has an entry for the collation?. The WD ontology is clear, its a war front (Q842332), but the water is muddled by how different sources treat it, and I could see someone adding lots more detail to this item, time window, location etc. And we have different English and British English descriptions, but both are true. Vicarage (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Vicarage
If it would just be a disambiguation page, the clear solution is to separate them to different Wikidata items and provide sitelinks to redirect if needed.
This case is however a bit different because the English one isn't a disambiguation page anymore but a "set index page". I don't remember us talking on Wikidata before about how we want to treat set index pages. Given that the German article is more clearly a disambiguation page I think here the best solution is to separate the two Wikidata items.
We do already have Battles of Ypres (Q29346148) for the series of battles, so moving Wikipages that aren't disambiguation pages or set index articles from Battle of Ypres (Q11156704) to Battles of Ypres (Q29346148) and removing the information from Battles of Ypres (Q29346148) that suggests that it's anything but a disambiguation page seems to me like a good solution. ChristianKl21:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Modern Abdera vs Ancient Abdera

[edit]

Hi!

I noticed the language links we're off on wikipedia:Abdera,_Thrace because some language links are tied to Q188615 (Abdera modern city) and Q132527193 ancient Abdera. The Wikipedia articles seem to cover both in the languages I have checked.

Should modern and ancient Abdera be represented by two different Wikidata items? Is there a guideline on this? Should it in that case be linked somehow? Which version should the pages that cover both be linked to?

I notice that a separation has been made between Q18287233 (ancient Rome) and Q220 (modern Rome) with a statement linking them, but encyclopedic importance of Rome could motivate special solutions for that city that might not be generalisable.

Our end goal should be to fix the language links on Wikipedia at least. (Note: there is also --Orubblig (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is also an item for the municipality, so there are three items Ancient Abdera (Q132527193), Abdera (Q188615), and Avdira Municipality (Q4258195). German, Greek and Russian have articles for all three, so it is useful to have separate items. From the English article, it seems that the locations of ancient Abdera and modern Avdira are different. I haven't checked, but I would not be surprised if some articles were linked to the wrong item. TSventon (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
That was a very good point. Tack! This demonstrates that there is need for separate items. On closer inspection I can now see that both are stated to be in Avdira Municipality and that they have been marked as different from each other. Is there a more suitable property? Rome vs Ancient Rome used said to be the same as. Which is correct?
Now that it is established that they should be separate articles, we have to take a decision on which is the most appropriate for each language article. For English, I would say it has to be moved to the modern city as the article is the modern city with ancient city as "history".--21:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Orubblig (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not an expert on when to use which property on Wikidata. The relations between ancient and modern cities seem to be different for Rome and Abdera, so different properties are probably appropriate. Rome has been in the same place and kept the same name since antiquity, while according to the en Wikipedia the ancient city of Abdera was abandoned, then a new settlement known as Polystylon emerged and was eventually given the name of Abdera. The en article says it is about the municipality which suggests a link to Avdira Municipality (Q4258195). TSventon (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
It says it is about the municipality, but most of the article is about the ancient city. I wish there was a strict policy here to guide us. As you point out, it wouldn't really be accurate to point it to the modern city/town either as it is a renamed separate city.
Perhaps the solution is to create separate Wikipedia articles. In the meanwhile, I am leaning towards doing nothing. Sorry about dragging you in to this.--Orubblig (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sources for possible Wikidata item about a German painter

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for advice regarding notability for a potential Wikidata item about a contemporary German painter.

A previous item about Eva Zucker was deleted some time ago due to insufficient sourcing.

Since then several independent sources documenting exhibitions and professional activity have appeared.

Examples include:

• Cultural portal exhibition listing on Kultur-MV https://www.kultur-mv.de/ausstellungen/evazucker-art-der-andere-blickwinkel-im-kunstmuseum-kloster-malchow.html

• Regional press article mentioning the exhibition at Kunstmuseum Kloster Malchow https://ol.wittich.de/titel/3441/ausgabe/9/2025/artikel/00000000000049080420-OL-3441-2025-33-9-0

• Cultural programme publication (KulturHerbst) https://strelitzius.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024_12-08_Broschuere_KulturHerbst_2024.pdf

• Cultural portal listing https://www.kultur-mv.de/kultur-anbieter/eva-zucker-zuckerart.html

• Tourism portal event listing https://www.auf-nach-mv.de/veranstaltungssuche/e-kunst-offen-mit-eva-zucker

Additional art related publications:

https://sayart.net/news/view/1065597608236365https://lolipoli.com/interview-mit-der-zeitgenoessischen-kuenstlerin-eva-zucker

Would these sources be considered sufficient to establish notability for a Wikidata item, or would additional independent coverage be required?

Thank you for your advice.

Eva Zucker (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help: Service number for Royal Air Force personnel

[edit]

Dear Wikidata experts,

Wikidata currently recognises the property ‘United States Armed Forces service number (P2028)’, which is an instance of ‘service number (Q7455778)’. As I would also like to record this property for personnel of, for example, the Royal Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force, who have also been assigned service numbers, I wonder whether there have been any discussions in the past about this potential extension that resulted in a negative decision. Are there any reasons against extending the property ‘service number (Q7455778)’ to other military units?

Best regards,

Rico Ricodiparma (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Presumably they would not be globally unique identifiers, which is a requirement for external id's. Just propose new properties for the other service numbers, identifiers like that are pretty routine here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
There was Wikidata:Property proposal/Service number, which was only opposed because of a suggestion to repurpose P2028 by changing its labels, descriptions, constraints, URLs and data type and requiring qualiifiers; it would have been easier to create a new property. Peter James (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thank you both for your suggestions! I will try to propose my first property. Ricodiparma (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Creating 2 different Wikipedia links, each in a separate Wikidata item, which redirect to the same page

[edit]

wikipedia:Time average redirects to wikipedia:Moving average, but actually they are 2 related albeit different concepts. How should I go about adding the Wikipedia link to my newly-created time average - Wikidata item? I'm sure there's a way... AddyLockPool (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects#Using badges to enter a sitelink to a redirect. Basically add the link using Wikidata UI as usual, but also include the intentional sitelink to redirect (Q70894304) badge. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adding new lexemes by bot

[edit]

We're preparing a batch of Moroccan Arabic lexemes (as part of this research project), but it seems that the Quickstatement tool does not allow adding new lexemes. Can I directly use my bot DarijaBot to perform this new task, or do I have to make a new bot request? Ideophagous (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the Wikidata_Lexeme_Forms tool have a bulk mode that might be used. I've never tried it, so I don't know if it fits your use-case. I would advise to perform the edits using the bot account just in case there are any issues with your batches which would need reverting or even blocking. All self-made bots needs approval. If you're familiar with Javascript I'm sure Wikibase-CLI would appreciate getting a patch to implement support for creating lexemes, this way other people would benefit. Certain general bulk-editing tools that implement EditGroups can be used without getting approval. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Thanks for the information. The bot already operates on Wikidata. I just want to know if I can extend its operations to this new task, or if each new task should be approved. I will check the tool you suggested. Cheers! Ideophagous (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Each new task should be approved, yes. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Script to make bulk RfDs

[edit]

Do we have such a script? MediaWiki:Gadget-RequestDeletion.js only allows single requests. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

There currently isn't a script. People usually go to https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&action=edit&section=new&preload=Wikidata:Requests%20for%20deletions/Preload_2&editintro=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Editintro_2&nosummary=1 and fill in the blanks to create a bulk request. Ternera (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware of that form. It isn't very convenient, though. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary 722

[edit]

Latest population numbers

[edit]

@AniaGrzybowska, Unpocoloco: thanks for importing population numbers to items. Could you please change the rank of the latest value to preferred so that this number is displayed eg in dynamic tables etc? Prior discussion was at Wikidata:Request a query/Archive/2026/02#Only latest population number (ping@Piastu:). It may be good if some script / bot auto-changed the rank of latest population numbers to preferred. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Temporary Accounts replacing IP editing for privacy reasons

[edit]

Why would Temporary Accounts replace IP editing for privacy reasons? ~2026-15304-43 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

They already have. Ainali (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
See Help:Temporary accounts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Making a property more broad

[edit]

I realize that a property that was made several months ago (‎modern shrine ranking (P13723)) can be made more broad, and with absolutely zero ground being made on another related property, I would like to broaden the existing category to all shrine ranks, and then use a qualifier to indicate which shrine ranking system is being represented. And adding a mandatory conferred by (P1027) qualifier to indicate the ranking system in question.

Rename ‎modern shrine ranking (P13723) to "shrine ranking" and every existing usage of the property will have conferred by (P1027) modern system of ranked Shinto shrines (Q712534). For things covered by the other proposal they will get conferred by (P1027) Engishiki ranking (Q138640329).

Is this something we can do? Immanuelle (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

We used Wikidata to build a 33M image dataset for training vision models (EntityNet)

[edit]

Hi all,

I'm one of the authors of a recent paper in which we made heavy use of Wikidata to create a large-scale image-text dataset for training CLIP vision-language models. I thought this community might find the approach interesting, since it is built directly on Wikidata’s structure.

What we did: We used SPARQL queries over the subclass-of (P279) and parent-taxon (P171) hierarchies to extract approximately 135k visual entities across 21 super-entity categories, including animals, plants, tools, and buildings. For each entity, we collected its name, description, aliases, and sitelink count. We also extracted attributes from Wikidata related to color, partonomy, behavior, and other aspects, and generated and curated additional attributes using LLMs. These entities and attributes were then used to generate search queries for downloading images from the web.

The resulting EntityNet dataset contains 33M images and 45M alt texts. The images are linked to 135k Wikidata entities, and in total we exported 613k text labels from Wikidata. One key finding was that training on a mix of Wikidata’s structured entity information and noisy web alt texts works better than using either alone: the knowledge graph metadata improves model quality.

The dataset, including image URLs and curated tables of entities and attributes, along with the paper, code, and trained models, is openly available here: https://entity-net.github.io/

Check it out if it sounds interesting. I’m happy to answer any questions. Simon-ging (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

WDQS Triple Store Evaluation Benchmark Results Report from Wikidata Platform Team

[edit]

As mentioned in the16 February 2026 Wikidata status update, the Wikidata Platform Team has completed an initial evaluation of alternatives to Blazegraph for the Wikidata Query Service (WDQS) and published a report. Anyone who uses the WDQS should read this report and decide whether they believe that the conclusions drawn there are supported by the evaluation that the team performed.

Because the report is a PDF document there is no obvious place to make comments. Some comments have been placed in the Discussion area of the team's monthly newsletter. (Be warned that this link is for the current-at-this-time newsletter and based on past practices the February newsletter may move to February newsletter.) Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question about item qualifier

[edit]

Say I have an item with instance of (P31) religious organization (Q1530022). What qualifier property that would be appropriate to denote its religion or maybe ethnicities? also is there any item example that does have the appropriate qualifier? FenyMufyd (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

religion or worldview (P140) is the one I use. I don't know of any very good examples but Society of Jesus (Q36380) might be helpful. Secretlondon (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge request for Rafa al-Yadayn

[edit]

Hello, could someone please merge Raf al-Yadayn (Q131418164) (English/Bengali) and Raf al-Yadayn (Q61970470) (Urdu/Punjabi)? They are duplicates of the exact same topic. Thank you. Ch.AhmedRaza23 (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Someone has done this for you. Secretlondon (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adding data for Attest - consumer research engine

[edit]

Hi there,

I am looking to add reliable unbiased factual data about Attest: https://www.askattest.com/

It is a consumer research engine for B2C brands, with customers including Netflix, Reddit, Unilever, Burger King.

For full transparency I am an independent comms consultant working with Attest on a short term basis.

Many thanks Abigail Insight (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

See WD:SELF and WD:N as to why we aren't keen on self promotion of commercial organisations. Vicarage (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

truncated image names with filetype changed

[edit]

HMS Grafton (Q5632604) has an image (P18) "HMS Grafton, fitted with a jury rudder, etc, for her voyage to England, after the storm off Louisbourg, 1757.".png, which is surely wrong, as the actual image on Commons is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Grafton,_fitted_with_a_jury_rudder,_etc,_for_her_voyage_to_England,_after_the_storm_off_Louisbourg_1757200500089.jpg which has the filetype changed from jpg to png, and the filename truncated. When I partiallly delete, and let it autocomplete, I get the png version. It displays the image in the page, so it still knows about it. What's going on? Vicarage (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply