Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat

Edit links
Add topic
Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
From Wikidata
Revision as of 09:38, 28 February 2020 by Jura1 (talk | contribs) (→Glossary additions)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Jura1 in topic Glossary additions

Edit

Why I can't edit interwiki links?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q785653 There should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype for EN wiki Page says: Could not save due to an error. The save has failed. Also at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype there is no russian --Oleh B (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype is already connect to Q131714, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes connects to Q785653, that is why the safe fails. Also, there is no Russian page to connect to Archetype: there is a disambiguation page at Q346973 and one for Jungian archetype or archetype in psychology at Q785653, connecting to the Russian Wikipedia. An actual article for the generic archetype concept does not seem to exist in Russian. Pending a bigger refactoring, the current situations looks correct. Or is there a specific issue with the mapping? --Denny (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to show the correct item if a statement is deprecated with 'applies to other...' reason?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Like in (4RS)-4-hydroxy-L-proline (Q27102938) I have two deprecated IDs (not removed, because someone probably would re-add these IDs in the future):

CAS Registry Number (P231)30724-02-8reason for deprecated rank (P2241)applies to other chemical entity (Q51734763)
DSSTox substance ID (P3117)DTXSID60861573reason for deprecated rank (P2241)applies to other chemical entity (Q51734763)

What would be the best way to show the correct item (in which the same ID is added correctly)? Which qualifier I should use? Wostr (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed Wikidata:Property proposal/intended subject.--GZWDer (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
What's wrong with normally adding the information to the correct item? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
And how to easily find the correct item from the wrong item? Using query every time? Wostr (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is gender a property that may violate privacy or likely to be challenged?

Latest comment: 5 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

@Daniel Mietchen: removed sex or gender (P21) from Q28913663 for WD:BLP. It have been removed by other user(s) but the removal was reverted by @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:. There's source that refers the person as female. I don't know whether it is proper to include the gender information to Wikidata.--GZWDer (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have reformatted the above link to the item in question. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've heard about religion, medical conditions and sexuality being information that violates privacy but never gender. It just seems like such extremely basic knowledge. --Trade (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not so basic if the only mostly binary value determines your competitors in sports, could mean "all or nothing" in heritage depending on the jurisfiction, etc. It's on the same privacy level as religion, sexual orientation, political views, address, phone number, or banking account. Not like the less critical and recently discussed weight or cup-size (boobpedia ID). –84.46.52.151 07:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
As in everything in life (Wikidata included), Common sense is required. Nothing is absolute. Gender may be non-controversial or obvious for the vast majority of living or historic people, but if there is reason to suspect that it is controversial, or sensitive, for some living people, then "basic knowledge" needs to take a hike, and exceptionally high sources are required. I have no knowledge of the subject in question, but in general, in some cases it may be preferable to leave the field empty, even if reliable sources can be scrounged from the depths of knowledge, if such information is not public, not widely circulated, and/or contradicts a person's stated or assumed gender. -Animalparty (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I put it back, with a reference. Ghouston (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
This was not a reference, this was speculation in the reference section of the claim in question. I have removed it again, and a source that explicitly states a gender is the absolute minimum requirement in these situations. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MisterSynergy: If the OTRS ticket shows that the value is incorrect, but doesn't give a correct value, wouldn't he be better to deprecate the statement? Perhaps make a new item for reason for deprecated rank (P2241) by analogy with consensus to remove (Q55193796), maybe "Reason for removal in OTRS ticket", and put the OTRS id in the Talk page (since there doesn't seem to be a property for OTRS ids. Perhaps there should be, so that OTRS tickets could be used as references if they supply a correct value). Ghouston (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The OTRS ticket is not a public source, thus we cannot use it here as a reference. Deprecation would be the way to go if there was a reference to a serious source, but we also found that the given value was incorrect. As long as there is no such reference, we do not need to keep the claim at all. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Animalparty: If we know the person's stated or assumed gender we can easily use that as the gender we show. I find it hard to imagine that you can have controversy about someone's gender without having sources that you can use to have a sense about what gender might be appropriate for the person. In the worst cases you might have a sourced "unknown value" statement. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GZWDer, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Trade, Animalparty, Ghouston, ChristianKl: I had non-public reasons to remove the information, and I shared them with OTRS. These reasons are clearly stated in WD:BLP, which is why I linked there from the edit summary. Perhaps that was not enough, and I am open for suggestions on how that process could be improved. In any case, I have pinged OTRS again, and the reasons for redacting the information have not changed, so I strongly suggest to keep it redacted, ideally in a way that would reference the OTRS ticket by something like Wikimedia VRTS ticket number (P6305), though that property was primarily intended for copyright stuff. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
We do have some alternatives for people who don't want to be identified as either male or female, if that's the issue. There's a list on the sex or gender (P21) constraints. Ghouston (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MisterSynergy: so you don't believe that inferred from pronoun used (Q73168402) and inferred from person's given name (Q69652498) are actually good enough for Wikidata purposes? We need some other reference, like a statement in some other database where somebody has probably made the same assumption on our behalf? Or importing the claim from Wikipedia, where somebody else has added a gender based on a guess? My own guess is that those two "reasonings", often combined with checking their appearance in photos, are likely to be accurate in a vast majority of cases. No data is ever 100% certain. Some of the claims about education and former jobs may turn out some day to be fabrications (or perhaps never discovered), but I doubt that the percentage is very high. Ghouston (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
This is not about correctness or likelihoods that your speculation might be "correct". Instead, think of Wikidata as a secondary database that collects publicly available data. In this case, there is apparently no explicit information about the gender of the person available, which means that Wikidata does not know it either.
Of course, unsourced claims and wild deductions based on names or pronouns or even images are widely used, and this is borderline okayish for situations where nobody complains. Here, someone has complained and we should thus only include information that is explicitly mentioned in a serious source, and use the ranking tool in case the referenced information is found to be incorrect. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
In this case is it meaningful to add sex or gender (P21)=somevalue? Especially if we meet constraint violations.--GZWDer (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
There are different opinions about how to use unknown value Help:
  • Some say it means that this information is generally unknown, and there are sources which explicitly state it as "unknown". According to this approach, you can only add it if you find a source that claims that the gender of the person in question is unknown; you should of course add this source in the reference section of the claim.
  • Others use it "because a thorough search for sources yielded no results, thus I speculate that the information is unknown (to the general public)". According to this approach, we could theoretically mass-add unknown value Help in plenty of properties to tons of items. I don't think that this would generate any benefit.
Which constraint is being violated here? Is it a item-requires-statement constraint (Q21503247) or value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864) or similar on another property? These ones are often unfixable… —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Preventing ping-pong protocol

We lack a mechanism to dissuade users from re-adding statements, in situations in which a subject has indicated that a property is, for them, a violation of their reasonable expectation of privacy (per WD:BLP "and which doesn't violate a person's reasonable expectations of privacy").

In the above case, a P21 value has been withdrawn 2 or 3 times. Right now if users check the item history punctiliously (they won't) or the talk page (maybe, maybe not) they may be alerted to an OTRS which may give them pause in re-adding the value. More likely, the value will be re-added, and removed again, and so on.

I think we need to do more by way of dissuasion and oversight, and I venture to suggest a mechanism: that in such cases there should be an OTRS log of the issue, and, after removal of the statement in an appropriate fashion (by edit, by oversight) a <no value> statement be added, with a {P|6305}} qualifier. The logic here is 1) <no value> is consonant with the subject's wishes, that wikidata hold no information for this property 2) OTRS qualifier is a strong hint in exactly the right place that there is an issue which should give users pause for thought about adding a value 3) we can use WDQS to report on occurrences of <no value> OTRS qualified statements having additional statements and 4) OTRS, or others, can maintain a list of such items against which removals of <no value> OTRS can be spotted. (It may be that we should go a step further and use e.g. sourcing circumstances (P1480) or another qualifier to hold a more clear "do not amend this property" value.) Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Well, no value Help has a different semantic meaning. It is "there is no gender for this entity", not "there is no gender for this entity in Wikidata". The latter is expressed by the absence of claims with non-deprecated rank of the corresponding property in the item.
    Formally, using deprecation would be just right, with a descriptive qualifier that explains the rank selection if desired. The ranking mechanism is all about data visibility, and "Deprecated rank" makes the data already pretty invisible for actual data users (SPARQL or Wikibase client parser functions).
    What's unfortunate here is the fact that the Web-UI does not really make deprecated data less visible. This is not totally surprising, given that the Web-UI is basically an editor tool, not an interface for data users, and editors somehow need to see the data not to be added again in order not to add it again. (External) casual visitors, however, might be using the Web-UI to inspect the data about them, and they will likely not understand the concept and impact of chosen ranks. IMO the display of deprecated rank claims in the Web-UI should be improved, in a way that better informs actual editors as well as external visitors what's on. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm a couple of orders less concerned about the supposed semantic meaning of <no value> than I am about a mechanism by which we can satisfy the BLP policy. Deprecating a value that a subject has indicated is a privacy violation does not seem "Formally ... right" so much as 100% against that policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Set it to <no value> and then deprecate it? Ghouston (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Is there a way to combine <no value> with a qualifier indicating deliberate suppression? - Jmabel (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have created a new Wikibase reason for deprecated rank (Q27949697) - Q86535474 to prevent the statement from being readded.--GZWDer (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do we have a rule against making revision deletion requests at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard?

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

@Jasper Deng: I'll like to have this clarified. I've made revision deletion requests at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard before but i never knew such an rule existed. --Trade (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

As we don't have an administrator mail list this may be the only viable way. Another way is via IRC but I don't think there's always someone online and actively monitering messages (in October I was asking an Oversight request to remove a password unintentionally leaked by another user in Wikidata, I can only find an oversighter after 80 minutes.)--GZWDer (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GZWDer: If it's urgent then i suppose you could just ping a admin who have been active within the last hour. Also what's an oversighter? --Trade (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Trade: WD:OS. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I remember there was a time where all admins were able to read deleted revisions. Any idea why that was changed?--Trade (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
There are two types of revdel:
  • admin-revdel (which admins can do and undo, and all admins can still see the admin-revdel'ed content; this is logged in Special:Log/delete)
  • oversight-revdel (which only oversighters can do and undo, and only oversighters can still see the content; this is *not* logged publicly)
If you think you need revdel, have a look at Wikidata:Deletion policy#Revision deletion first and decide which sort of revdel you need. As WD:AN is watched by hundreds of editors, it may im many situation be wiser to approach individual admins or oversighters via email, in order not to drag too much attention to the problematic content. This is usually the case for content pages (items, etc.), but often not so much on high-traffic project pages such as the Project chat. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, requests for revdel are best sent to individual admins using wikimail.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
While we don't have an admin mailing list, we do have oversight@wikidata.org for the people with Oversight rights. I think in most cases that's a better road then using Wikimail to contact individual admins. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl:, how long is the response time usually when using that mail? --Trade (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
It should be quick, but sometimes they need two or three days to look at the edit and respond. Only three oversighters seem to be reading that list, and they are … currently not among the most active editors here ;-) This is another reason why asking an admin for a quick action can be a good idea. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

soweego 2 proposal

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

(Please disregard this message if you have already read it in the Wikidata mailing list, and apologies for the distraction)

  • TL;DR: soweego 2 is on its way!
  • The Project Grant proposal is out for your consideration:

Hi everyone,

Does the name soweego ring you a bell? It's an artificial intelligence that links Wikidata to large catalogs: https://soweego.readthedocs.io/ It's a close friend of Mix'n'match (Q28054658), which generally copes with small catalogs.

The next big step is to check Wikidata content against third-party trusted sources. In a nutshell, we want to enable feedback loops between Wikidatans and catalog maintainers. The ultimate goal is to foster mutual benefits in the open knowledge landscape.

I would be really grateful if you could have a look at the proposal.

Can't wait for your feedback.

Best,
Hjfocs (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply


Soweego 1 review

There seem to have been serveral reports on Soweego 1, but I don't think they were shared at Wikidata or elsewhere, nor seem the actual outputs to be widely known. Reports are:

The outputs seem to be:

The Mix'n'match catalogues seem to be either unused or unusable. I suppose they are "automatched" based on the Soweego scores and qid, but now contributors would have to confirm them manually.
As of today, this is hardly done and even users who work on other catalogues might not find them as the entries aren't searchable by text (try to find a record by name). The entries provide no information that would allow to do that without going back to the source database.
The few unmatched ones create horrible entries like [1] repeating the label and description from MnM : 8447 soweego confidence score: 0.5026371479034424"
For databases where this is possible, maybe a suitable use of the MnM catalogues could be to import most entries that haven't a potential duplicate in MxM.
Is there any guidance available what's meant to be done with the MnM catalogues? --- Jura 15:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Danrok — 10:42, 02 August 2015 (UTC) Queryzo — 10:42, 02 August 2015 (UTC) Rogi.Official — 10:42, 02 August 2015 (UTC) Mushroom — 10:42, 02 August 2015 (UTC) Ermanon — 10:42, 02 August 2015 (UTC) ValterVB — 10:42, 02 August 2015 (UTC) LydiaPintscher — 10:42, 02 August 2015 (UTC) Mbch331 — 11:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Jobu0101 — 22:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC) putnik — 02:10, 01 March 2016 (UTC) ohmyerica — 23:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC) AmaryllisGardener — 22:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Andreasmperu — 22:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC) U+1F350 — 14:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Bodhisattwa — 18:52, 06 November 2018 (UTC) Shisma — 19:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Wolverène — 07:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Tris T7 — 19:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Antoine2711 — 23:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC) CptViraj — 10:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC) WikiSyn — 09:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Trivialist — 01:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 2le2im-bdc — 20:51, 03 April 2020 (UTC) Sotiale — 02:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Wallacegromit1 — 16:48, 01 July 2020 (UTC) M2k~dewiki — 14:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Rockpeterson — 13:09, 03 December 2020 (UTC) Mathieu Kappler — 15:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Spinster — 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Gnoeee — 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Ranjithsiji — 10:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Ontogon — 13:13, 03 October 2021 (UTC) Supaplex — 15:53, 04 November 2022 (UTC) Carlinmack — 10:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Haseeb55 — 07:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Demadrend — 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Jakeob9000 — 08:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC) RealityBites — 02:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Sriveenkat — 06:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Keplersj — 20:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) dseomn — 19:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Fuzheado — 20:04, 06 February 2024 (UTC) BeLucky — 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC) DaxServer — 14:57, 07 June 2024 (UTC) PaperHuman — 22:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Jerimee — 19:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Rémi sim — 22:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Ebakogianni — 21:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Wiccio — 08:36, 07 March 2025 (UTC) BadhonCR -Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Movies

As Imdb is included, WP Movies would probably be most interested. --- Jura 13:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reply to soweego 1 review

Hey @Jura1: thanks a lot for your review, super appreciated and really valuable! Here are my replies.

  • 250,000 identifiers added. Excellent! Supposedly this is the key output of the project.
Yes, this is indeed the core task.
  • Oddly, the final report doesn't mention much of the problem we had with Twitter.
This is normal, the final report was completed before[1] this specific topic was raised.[2]
  • Another issue that also surfaced there (the absence of numeric ids in Wikidata) wasn't really followed up and is now handled by another user/bot.
This was added in the project backlog.[3] Thanks a lot for the pointer, I will mark the issue as resolved.
The Wikidata community is just great.
  • The Mix'n'match catalogues seem to be either unused or unusable.
I completely disagree.
People have already contributed some curation,[4][5] and the Auxiliary data matcher seems to be doing quite a lot of job as well.[6]
  • I suppose they are "automatched" based on the Soweego scores and qid, but now contributors would have to confirm them manually.
Correct.
  • the entries aren't searchable by text
This was already raised[7] and is in the project backlog.[8] It requires quite some work, and will be addressed if version 2 proposal gets selected.
  • The few unmatched ones create horrible entries like [2] repeating the label and description from MnM
Wow, thanks for spotting this, I totally agree. This seems to be MnM default behavior when creating a new item. I'm opening a new ticket for it.
  • maybe a suitable use of the MnM catalogues could be to import most entries that haven't a potential duplicate in MxM.
I'm not sure I understand this point, could you please expand?
  • Is there any guidance available what's meant to be done with the MnM catalogues?
What goes into MnM are medium-confident links, i.e., those needing curation.[9] MnM is the natural tool for that.

Cheers! --Hjfocs (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

References
  1. ↑ https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego/Final&oldid=19240771
  2. ↑ https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:V6cc1thgo09otfw5&action=history
  3. ↑ https://github.com/Wikidata/soweego/issues/376
  4. ↑ see for instance the Users section in https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/#/catalog/2709
  5. ↑ In https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/#/catalog/2712 QTHCCAN has curated 163 potential matches
  6. ↑ 1k matches in https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/#/catalog/2711 for instance
  7. ↑ https://github.com/Wikidata/soweego/issues/364
  8. ↑ https://github.com/Wikidata/soweego/issues/325
  9. ↑ m:Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego/Final#Summary

Further comments on soweeego 1

  • About "The Mix'n'match catalogues seem to be either unused or unusable.": I doubt that 80 of 40,0000 entries highlight use of a MxM catalogue. As there is no auxiliary data present for these catalogues (AFAIK), the auxiliary data matcher merely copies entries already added to Wikidata back to MxM. For the three I checked one was by your bot [2], a bot prior to the project [3], the other manually [4]. Maybe the first two highlight some other problem. --- Jura 12:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "maybe a suitable use of the MnM catalogues could be to import most entries that haven't a potential duplicate in MxM." To explain this a little further: it could be the key second outcome of your project.
    Consider all of a given resource:
    (1) either we have it already (nothing todo, statements are already here),
    (2) we can add it to existing items with confidence (what your bot did),
    (3) it's likely that we have an entry, but we aren't sure. Supposedly that's what's in MxM
    (4) Anything else that Wikidata is still missing. A large part of this could probably be added directly.
    Hope that clarifies it. --- Jura 12:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I like that the matching is fed into mix'n'match. Relying on an existing tool may be more effective than trying to invent yet another one, like the Wikidata:Primary sources tool. It would be nice to learn more on what could increase usage of those mix'n'match tasks. Nemo 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Jura1: the example I mentioned actually has 226 manual matches out of 4,738 total entries, but of course there is room for improvement;
  • let me try to clarify your second point to see if I understand correctly: soweego mines matches over existing Wikidata items without a given catalog identifier. Confident ones are uploaded through the bot, while potential ones get to MnM for an additional check. The set of non-matching catalog identifiers could be used to create new Wikidata items: if the community thinks this is useful, it would be a key outcome of the project indeed.
  • @Nemo bis: I think that the missing labels and descriptions in MnM entries would increase the usability for sure, and that's scheduled work.
Cheers,
Hjfocs (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looking at some of the "226 manual matches" and the recent changes of the catalogue, it seems that the user simply clicked "manual sync" and an automated batch imported edits done by other users at Wikidata into MxM. It just shows that the identifiers get added directly to Wikidata despite the catalogue. It is similar to the "auxiliary data matcher" already discussed. --- Jura 09:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

UK 1922 or 1927?

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

There are:

The descriptions on these two items use 1922 or 1927 (oddly, not even in one language the year is the same on both items). Also, thousands of items use both items as values in country of citizenship (P27) with start/end year in qualifiers (20818*12 April 1927) [5].

Obviously, the descriptions and these qualifiers should match. So, what should it be? Do we need to have a bot update or remove all qualifiers? --- Jura 10:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The territorial change happened in 1922, but the name of Parliament only changed in 1927 by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. We certainly should not say that the UK was *founded* in 1927. Owain (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm still mystified about how the UK could have been founded in 1922 or 1927, while the USA was founded in 1776. It's not like the territory of the US hasn't changed a bit since then, but apparently name changes are all-important. It means that the entity that we call the UK didn't take part in WWI, for example. Ghouston (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
That was the point I was trying to clarify. the UK wasn't founded in 1922 or 1927, but 1801, and of course Great Britain and Ireland shared the same monarch since 1603. You are right that territorial changes happen all the time, which is why I added the clarification "territorial extent from 1922". Even the names of states change, but that should not and does not change the date on which the state was founded. Owain (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think it's debatable if there are should be two items, but if we have two, we should try to use them consistently and add adequate descriptions.
If the item is only applicable starting 1927, including 1922 in the description will likely lead the users to apply the wrong one. --- Jura 15:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
There will be two items even if only because Wikipedias have articles for both. But if you check en:United Kingdom, it gives a range of "formation" dates in the infobox, starting at 1535. I don't think it would be unreasonable to treat the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) item as an historical period of United Kingdom (Q145) instead of a separate country in its own right. Ghouston (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Whilst I have sympathy for the view that UKoGB&I = UK, equally, let me scotch a couple of Owain's points. the UK wasn't founded in 1922 or 1927, but 1801 ... no. The UKoGB&I was founded in 1801. And something called the UK was founded in 1921/22/27 (take your pick); which had different territory, different parliament, different name. It's not a genie that you'll ever get back into a 'just a rename' bottle. Great Britain and Ireland shared the same monarch since 1603 and Canada, Oz, NZ &c share the same monarch today; are not the same country, so we can dispense with that straw man. If the whole name/parliament/law thing does not mark, for you, the passing of one state and the birth of another, that's fine. But you have to ask why the loss of most of Ireland is not significant, whilst the union with Scotland, or the merging of GB & Ireland are significant. By the logic proffered, we could equally say this is all really the Kingdom of England rolling on as it does, gathering a country here, losing it there. You can look to the USA item and wonder why we don't just handle the UK like that. Or you could look at France (Q142) but also at French First Republic (Q58296) and French Third Republic (Q70802) (to choose just two of the many France Country type items) and conclude that if anything, the UK is slightly clearer. It's all not ideal; it is complex; it is not helped by eliding over the need to deal with the very real changes of state by asserting that an arbitrary set of them are the same. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

In what way does the pre-1922 and post-1922 UK have a different Parliament? Why does a change of name make a material difference here, but not in say, Myanmar (Q836)? Owain (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Unclear unless we know the reason that we are considering them separate entities. Is it because the territory changed, or because the name changed? Ghouston (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • 1927 used in thousands of qualifiers is for Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 (Q7375047). --- Jura 08:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • That looks like a simple name change, which can be handled with multiple official name (P1448) statements with start and end qualifiers. The most significant change was the loss of most of Ireland in 1922. However, I still think it's a questionable interpretation that that constitutes the creation of a "new" United Kingdom, any more than the loss of the Philippenes needs to be interpreted as the creation of new USA. Note also that Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 (Q7375047) is marked as an instance of Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q4677783), like many other acts passed by parliaments of "different countries" even back to the early 1800s such as Slave Trade Act 1807 (Q770832). Ghouston (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • In other words, I'd say it's most consistent with history, as most people understand it, to say that the UK lost some territory in 1922, and changed its name in 1927, than to say that the old UK was dissolved in 1922, a new UK formed, and then 5 years later they realized that they had forgotten to name the new country properly and renamed it. Ghouston (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Well, saying "dissolved" and "newly formed" is unfair, it's more like the "old UK" split into the new state of Ireland and the "new UK". But many kinds of entities change over time, and we can represent them either with new and old items at the point of change, or a single item with start and end dates on particular statements where needed. Either way is presumably valid, but I think in this case, it's better represented as a state that lost some territory than as a split, since so many features of the UK remained the same. Ghouston (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Note that after the formal split, both of the entities eventually renamed: the UK in 1927, and the Irish Free State was renamed to Éire, or Ireland in 1937 and "described" as Republic of Ireland in 1948, according to enwiki. But 1922 is more relevant for the split than 1927. Ghouston (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • A similar situation was discussed recently in the context of Scotland possibly leaving the UK. See https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/643.pdf. The options are discussed starting on page 13, but basically some model or other would need to be adopted, one option being that the "RUK", the remainder of the UK, would continue as the successor of the UK, for the purposes of ~14k treaties, membership of the UN, etc., and Scotland would need to start as a new country from scratch. On page 130, Lidington says: "If we look at analogous examples, when Ireland established the Irish Free State in 1922 the United Kingdom continued to exist. It was accepted as such. The Free State and subsequently the Irish Republic became new countries. The same applied when India, which as a dominion had been a founder member of the United Nations, separated from Pakistan. India was accepted as a continuing state; Pakistan was the new state and had to apply to join the international organisations. The same took place when Eritrea became independent from Ethiopia, when South Sudan became independent from Sudan, when Malaysia and Singapore separated. If you look at recent European history, it is very striking that at the time of German unification the Federal Republic of Germany continued to exist and was accepted as such and what happened in international law and in terms of membership of organisations was that new Länder from the former German Democratic Republic became part of that continuing Federal Republic of Germany." Ghouston (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed that in the case of Ireland, the Irish Free State (Q31747) and Ireland (Q27) have been set up as different countries. If there's a desire to treat every change of territory or adoption of a new constitution or name as effectively creating a new country, we also have the option of creating an additional item for the UK, to cover the 1922-1927 period. Ghouston (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I made this change [6], so the enwiki article now actually mentions 1927. Ghouston (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that Wikidata country items are typically created because they have Wikipedia articles, and on Wikipedia, country names are the most important thing. A country generally gets a separate article for each historical name, and doesn't generally get a separate article for changes in constitution etc. Ghouston (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal to undeprecate comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) ("Comment" property)

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Even this is not structured data, Sometimes it is useful to add editorial comment about an entity to notice editors of the item (e.g. what should not be changed or be added). This is similar to comments in the source of Donald Trump article in English Wikipedia. For example Talk:Q19862406 contains some information that are important to editors. Another example is some informations that should not be added to Wikidata, or removed by consensus (currently there's not a way to indicate them). This property is to be used as both main statement and qualifier. Recently created Wikimedia community discussion URL (P7930) is to be used together with this property (as a reference).

For clearity, I also propose to rename the property to "editorial comment" and explicitly stated that these should be ignored by data (re)users. However, as it is important to editors, I proposed to order it at the top of the entity page, even above instance of (P31).--GZWDer (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Once again, what's wrong with suggesting people actually look at the Talk pages for this kind of thing? Most items have no talk page, so the existence of one (blue instead of red link) should be a clue to read it... ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think most users will read the talk page before editing an item.--GZWDer (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
What makes you think they will read this comment either? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, except that some people think it’s useful to create talk pages with nothing but {{Item documentation}}, producing blue links with no useful information. —Galaktos (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  •  Support For analogy, consider the MARC standards for book cataloguing [7]. These are very very structured, and very very prescriptive, with the aim being to capture as much of the information about the book or edition as possible, in a very prescribed framework. But even MARC allows a number of fields (identified by a code in the 500 to 599 range) for notes of different kinds in free-text. Sometimes there are things (including important warnings and caveats) that are worth communicating to other people reading an item, that simply can't to be expressed just with properties statements and qualifiers. GZWDer is quite right that most people simply will not see such messages if they are on the talk page. Nor are they accessible for query and retrieval there. The assertion sometimes made that "this isn't structured data, therefore we can't have it here" is very thin, giving no answer to the question "Why not?" Indeed, being able to attach comments as qualifiers to particular statements, does locate those comments in a very specific and structured way.
Obviously, wherever possible, we should try to express information through properties and values, that are immediately internationalised, and expressed in terms of items that are themselves parts of the wikibase. Wherever possible we must make the extra effort to try to express information that way. But it isn't always possible, so in my view: yes, there is a role for free-text comments, attached as qualifiers to statements, or main statements to items. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Questions about photo(s) on a wikidata page

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

1. Is only one photograph permitted per wikidata page about a person?

2. Can a wikidata page about a person have 3 photos, if they show that person in their youth, their middle age and their elder years to give a sense of the changes to that person appearance over their lifetime?

Thank you, 

    Tibet Nation (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The image (P18) property is intended to hold a single image that can be displayed in infobox templates, etc. If you want multiple representations, it's best to make a montage, and use montage image (P2716). Ghouston (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The infobox displays only the first image. If you want to have it display the second image you have to deprecate the first image or prioritize the second image. The field does not give an error message if it contains more than one image, so there is no current restriction. When previously discussed, people were upset by more than three images. I personally think it should hold at least the two best images, and it would be even better if periodically it automatically switched the prioritized image just to change things around once in a while. --RAN (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Restricting to a single image is the only restriction that doesn't seem completely arbitrary to me. If you are going to have multiple images, you may as well include every relevant image from Commons. Ghouston (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Reductio ad absurdum always welcome! --RAN (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
When you have N images for an item, it's likely that somebody will think they don't depict the concept sufficiently, and they need N+1. That's my reasoning for stopping the process at 1. How many images would you need to depict a large city properly? Ghouston (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. In the beginning, we do not limit the number of images in P18 and we ended up with items with 100+ images (somehow related to item) in P18.--Jklamo (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Need redirect auto replacement

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Take a look at Mary Wellesley (Q75387210) and the field for father. Because of a merge the field contains the old value that leads to a redirect so it gets an error message. Is there any way that these can be auto-replaced with the correct value? It also leads to problems in the genealogical graphic at Commons. See Commons:Category:George_Cadogan,_5th_Earl_Cadogan where the bad value appears as the Q-number of the redirect. --RAN (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good old Peerage bulk import problems! There is said to a bot that replaces these in due time. Namely, User:KrBot, said by User:GZWDer. Ivan A. Krestinin might have more information. -Animalparty (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
KrBot will wait at least 24 hours, probably more, in case the merge is reverted.--GZWDer (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ordinary redirects may be handle by Lua modules without any special handling. But in this case it is a double redirect so Lua module will not work. Currently there're two bots fixing double redirects, Revibot and PLbot.--GZWDer (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Lua does sometimes need special handling for redirects. That's one of the reasons we still fix them (the other is WDQS). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Special:MostRevisions

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Special:MostRevisions wasn't updated since 25 November 2019. Eurohunter (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It has been disabled: phab:T239072. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Property:P1801

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Property:P1801 is currently used for "commemorative plaques" and I added "signage" in the description. Can we change the name to more generic "signage" so the field can contain more than commemorative plaques? We often have pictures of the signs on buildings so we correctly identify them. Rather than create a new field, how about expanding this one? See Jedediah Higgins House (Q74473194) for an instance and peek at the plaque field. --RAN (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's a very good example & don't think 'signage' is a very sensible extension of P1801. Your example is a sign associated with a house knonw as the Jedediah Higgins House. A commemorative plaque tends to be a plaque affixed to a building (that is not named for the person named in the plaque), generally saying "Foo Bar, lived here, 1739-1829" - example at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7251#P1801. The plaque commemorates the person. The sign merely tells you what the building is called. So, yeah: strongly oppose. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
You want to tighten the use to instance_of=human? I am not against using the related_image field to hold signage images, if we remove the restriction of not allowing use of related_image if the image field is populated. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would use place name sign (P1766), see for example Thomas Paine Cottage (Q7792975) and Ray Charles Childhood Home (Q55806705) Piecesofuk (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Perfect! I will add it as a "See also" with image, so more people are aware of it. --RAN (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I tried to add in all the image fields as see alsos in image, if you know of others, or can search for all of them, please add them. There are about a dozen so far. Most of them I was not aware of. --RAN (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Change of identifier

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know if it is the right place to advise users about a proposal. Please have a look to this. --★ → Airon 90 07:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

TV Show Judges

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know of a property that I could use in order to list the people who were judges on a TV show? I can't find anything that would do the job properly, they're not a presenter (P371), participant (P710) or cast member (P161). Any suggestions? - X201 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

They could be a cast member or participant with qualifier of object of statement has role (P3831) = reality television program judge (Q60118864) or similar. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Property talk:P131#Possible change of usage

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note the possible rescoping of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). --- Jura 12:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Merging coronavirus pages

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't Q290805 and Q57751738 be merged? Specifically those items in Q57751738 are actually titled "coronavirus" should be instead linked to Q290805, no? Huji (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)ping me in your response pleaseReply

Q290805 has a different taxon rank than Q57751738 and Q57751738. This is not Wikipedia, where the title is the defining field, in Wikidata the statements define the concept. --SCIdude (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC) ...oh I forgot to @User:Huji: you...Reply
@User:Huji: also note that the ukwiki has articles for both. It's quite possible that some of the sitelinks are connected to the wrong item, though. Ghouston (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Ghouston: ok fair. But are those pages associated with Q57751738 that are named "coronavirus" really correctly linked to Q57751738 or should they be connected to Q290805 instead? Huji (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't know enough to say. It depends on what exactly is the difference between these two items. Perhaps one includes a larger set of virus than the other, given that one is a genus and the other a subfamily. Then the pages (and other items that link to the items) could be distinguished by which viruses they include. There's also Coronaviridae (Q1134583) if you go up to the family level. Ghouston (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The frwiki article fr:Coronavirus, for example, despite its title, is about the subfamily. Ghouston (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reversing the roles of Twitter properties

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Twitter properties X (Twitter) username (P2002) and X numeric user ID (P6552) are currently used with the former as main statement and latter as qualifier. However, only the latter is truly an identifier and the former easily becomes stale data without both a point in time qualifier and the P6552 identifier qualifier.

If you enter Twitter data at all, please contribute to the discussion at Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/SilentSpikeBot#Relevant_property_discussion where I seek to establish a bot task to handle tidying up Twitter data and have started a discussion on whether the swapping of these property roles should be part of that. --SilentSpike (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Computational limit

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I asked this once before, but still not sure why we are at our computational limit. Wikidata:Database reports/items with P569 greater than P570 looks for people who died before they were born. It no longer runs because it times out in the 1-minute allotted for computations. What can be done to be able to run one of our important error detection searches for instances_of=human? It has been used to correct >1,000 errors in the past. It is important since it also detects errors that we imported from VIAF, and VIAF uses our corrections to correct their own database. As well as detecting typos, it finds where have conflated two people of the same name. --RAN (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I added FILTER(?bdate > ?ddate), which seems to help a bit (I got results without timeout both times I tried it, though I may have gotten lucky). --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Excellent, thanks! Wow, lots more errors to fix tonight. [BTW it was temporary, you must have tried during a slow load time]. --RAN (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Maybe we could also run two reports, say one for men and one for women, and subdivide further when needed? I'm curious for your evidence that VIAF are ingesting our corrections (which would be good news); I thought they'd stopped. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh no! Why did they stop? I can see that some of the conflated records we have a list of are very difficult to tease apart. Some of the simple typographical errors where two numbers are transposed were easy to fix and he corrected them right away when notified. Did the one person retire? I will look and see if I still have his email. --RAN (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't the easiest fix just be to double the limit to two minutes instead of just one? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The query service is already at maximum capacity, we can't easily let it do more work. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Is this one of the reasons we have slowed down in adding new large data sets?

(badtoken) Invalid CSRF token.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm receiving it while adding new language code. Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Two profiles for one person

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone merge Q75788407 into Q7812365? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Zanimum: ✓ Done; you can have a look at Help:Merge if you want to see how you can do this yourself. Mahir256 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Edit rate in Wikidata

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

in QuickStatements the batches are running slow. I am not a programmer and dont know much about what happens after saving an edit in Wikidata. As far as I have understand the Speed of Editing in Wikidata is in relation to the maxlag parameter. If there is a big lag at the servers and there also and in the last months mostly as far as I know at the query servers then the editing rate is going to be lower. What is the current plan to solve that problem of a lag at the query servers. I think it is not good if editing Wikidata with batches needs a long time. Something I suggested here is to create lists of data related to a specific topic that can be downloaded. I think that would reduce the number of queries and then the query servers have more time to write the changes. I am interested in doing this and for that I need the data and at my home it would need to long to donwload the dump. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2020-February/013793.html  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) at 21. 2. 2020, 23:46‎ (UTC).

Quote or excerpt

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We have quote_or_excerpt where we can add in a short excerpt from a public domain book, usually the opening few sentences. For those in other languages do we ever translate them, and add them in another field and mark them somehow as a translation of an excerpt? This would be for a work that has no translated version. --RAN (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikisource categories for topics

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Wikisource has no page at "Staffordshire", so should we link its "Category:Staffordshire" to Category:Staffordshire (Q8809886) or, as we would for many Commons categories, with no page at that project, to Staffordshire (Q23105)? I favour the latter. If you disagree, please give reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commmon categories are generally linked with the category item, if it already exists. Ghouston (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
...and, from what I have seen, Wikinews categories are linked with the main item. I believe what's going on with Wikisource could go either way depending on the category page in question. Mahir256 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Really? That's not my experience. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata and SEO

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

There seems to be quite an increase in the amount of people who use Wikidata as a tool for search engine optimization (Q180711) self-promotion. I'm worried that the spam items are created faster than we can find and promote them for deletion. --Trade (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Give some examples. --RAN (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Trade: from what I can tell, a lot of people don't see this as a problem in the first place. Self-promotion is actively encouraged in Wikidata. The notability guidelines have been changed recently to stop discouraging people from creating their own item. We are on the right track to gather the sum of all knowledge about all SEO professionals and Wikimedians. − Pintoch (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
If you're going to criticise the actions of individual contributors in good standing, such as Denny and Fuzheado, have the courtesy to name, and ping them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • When you are claiming that your job is Entrepreneur/Influencer/SEO, we really shouldn't let them on WD to build their brand. Their brand should already be built before we have them here. It is "catch 22" of notability - you can't be a brand until you are on WD but you should be a brand before you are on WD. It really should take more than having an internet connection for someone to claim themselves as an influencer who needs to use WD for SEO. Quakewoody (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • We have millions of people on Wikidata already, many of them living. Maybe some day we'll have billions. But SEO people should definitely not be a priority; I'll happily vote for their deletion if they are not otherwise notable. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think you are trying to apply English Wikipedia notability standards to Wikidata. Notability here is to actually exist, and not be a prank or vandalism. Since the language of the data that can be entered is limited, it is hard to use promotional language, you can really just show that you exist or a product exists. --RAN (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

National Museums Greenwich subject ID

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Does anyone know if there is an equivalent of Property:P7332 for subjects of artworks at National Museums Greenwich rather than the artists? I was trying to add a subject link to Q5224177 but it comes out as a brief note on the individual but no files as they were subject (person) rather than maker. To get the subject files the link should be https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections.html#!csearch;authority=agent-8868;browseBy=person but the property forces the link to https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections.html#!csearch;authority=agent-8868;browseBy=maker From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Undetected vandalism

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

See Cayetano Coll y Toste (Q5055304) as an example, I only detected it because they changed the date to have the person dead before they were born. Many others in the current error detection batch had the same IP vandalism, all from different IPs. There are 10 detected IP vandalisms so far in the current months batch, so that is one every 3 days or so. How are we detecting more subtle vandalism, like changing a date by a few years instead of 100 years? --RAN (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I realise this may not apply to a lot of data, but it seems to me that any time a sourced statement is changed or removed it would need review. This is one way subtle vandalism could be detected and why sourcing statements is so important (sadly, most data here is not). --SilentSpike (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
If the date field contained a reference that reference would still be in place when the record was vandalized and appear to be properly referenced. Recently a warning has been added when a date changed and the reference not changed. That may help. --RAN (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Taxonomy

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hoi, Please read this blogpost where a scientific taxonomy conference reports on taxonomy in Wikidata. It states quite clearly that the notions on taxonomy that have prevailed are at least problematic. Can we stop bickering for a change and accept that taxonomy is different from the current preconceptions? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure „The conclusion of the Taxonomy team was that taxonomy is hard.“ No breaking news at all. Would be great to have sone real content from Taxon Names and Concepts group (TNC). --Succu (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW: The idea of a taxon concept (Q38202667) was established 25 years ago in The Concept of "Potential Taxa" in Databases (Q28957948). --Succu (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Wikidata has somewhat lost its way with taxonomy and it can be seen from the data that users do not understand the intricacies of taxonomic names versus taxonomic concepts". Or in other words, academics will spend a few more decades developing the platonic ideal of a perfect onthology while we're just making something that works. I'm entirely fine with it. Nemo 10:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
 Info: Here are the etherpad notes of Cost MOBILISE Wikidata Workshop 2020 (Q84943795). --Succu (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
What we have does not work; as discussed here at length. What heart rate does your name have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ask your fitness tracker (Q16001686) ;) --Succu (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The biggest issue is that we are not able to make a clear choice between taxon concept vs name concept. If each taxa items represents a name, and only one, then this taxa items should inherit of all the properties of the names, and as exemple a "recombination" should be a subclass of a taxon. Otherwise if we don't accept this kind of things, and it's understandable, then the names should be separated so that we can work on. The issue is that we don't do one, not the other, neither a summary of the both. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to mass-remove descriptions?

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

jinmaku (Q651348) was incorrectly marked as instance of (P31)=Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), and the bots have added descriptions in many languages. Is there an easy way to remove them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to qualify P22 to indicate 'official father' vs biological father ?

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

In a case like Diana Cooper (Q128576) (cf enwiki), how best to qualify father (P22) to distinguish her official father from her biological father?

I have looked at the table at Wikidata:WikiProject_Parenthood, but it's not very specific on this.

As for a probable parentage (eg Q5541503#P22, where the source (ODNB) says the later George IV "was believed to be the father of her son", I think sourcing circumstances (P1480) (or perhaps nature of statement (P5102)) is the way to go, though I'm not 100% sure of the best value in this case. But I see from the table at the WikiProject we do also have may be father (Q21152551). Should this be used as the value of kinship to subject (P1039) instead? My instinct is to keep qualifiers for the nature of the relationship distinct from qualifiers for how certain it may or may not be. But perhaps there are good reasons that have led to the creation of Q21152551 ? I'd like to know what people think. Jheald (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

ChristianKl (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Melderick (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton Jklamo (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Sam Wilson Gap9551 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Jrm03063 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Egbe Eugene (talk) Eugene233 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Pablo Busatto (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Theklan (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC) SM5POR (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Pmt (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC) CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Ayack (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC) EthanRobertLee (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) -- Darwin Ahoy! 18:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Germartin1 (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Skim (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC) El Dubs (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC) CAFLibrarian (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Jheald (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Genealogy Jheald (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notified participants of WikiProject Parenthood Jheald (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello,
For Diana Cooper (Q128576)'s legal father, I would use qualifier kinship to subject (P1039) = legal father (Q66363656).
As for uncertainty of a statement, I usually use nature of statement (P5102) with values like hypothetically (Q18603603), presumably (Q18122778), disputed (Q18912752) ... I am not a big fan of may be father (Q21152551).
--Melderick (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Melderick: Thanks! I'd missed that legal father (Q66363656) already existed. Jheald (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Melderick: What about the inverse relationship?
Is there a preferred kinship to subject (P1039) qualifier for eg Louis XV of France (Q7738)child (P40)Charles Louis Cadet de Gassicourt (Q2618388)? Presumably biological child (Q53705034), though I see we also have illegitimate child (Q170393), frillo child (Q10499185), royal bastard (Q7375049). But it would be good to have proper guidance on this set down somewhere.
Also what qualifier for Louis Claude Cadet de Gassicourt (Q736277)child (P40)Charles Louis Cadet de Gassicourt (Q2618388) ? I'm not seeing an item for "legal child" or "legal son" or "not biological child". Perhaps it should be created, or does something similar already exist and I've missed it? Jheald (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
adopted child (Q25858158)? —Scs (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bad data imports

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

CERL ID and Catalogo della Biblioteca IDs and deutsche-biographie have been added recently to people with the same name, born centuries apart. The years or birth and death were added from the sources. I can detect some errors since they cause a person to die before they were born, or cause a person to be older than 120 years. Are there other ways to detect the errors that may be more subtle? I noticed that some of the data from Catalogo della Biblioteca is corrupt before we import it, should we exclude bad data before we import it? http://catalogo.pusc.it/auth/126105 which has conflated two people and the data came from VIAF https://viaf.org/viaf/2713072/ which may have come from us. --RAN (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Have you asked the users doing the import first? I don't know Pusc but CERL people were working on a massive cleanup. Nemo 10:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Common-law marriage, concubines, fiancées, domestic partnerships and other types of partners

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to specify these kind of things.*Treker (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I imagine use of the spouse (P26) property with object of statement has role (P3831) as a qualifier taking appropriate values for common-law spouse, fiancée, &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@*Treker, Tagishsimon: Where the relationship does not constitute a legal marriage, use unmarried partner (P451). This can be qualified if desired as Tagishsimon indicates, if there is more detail to record. Jheald (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
What about concubines? Historically concubines would be considered legal spouses, just of a lesser status than the "main" wife.*Treker (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
There are likely different countries with different conception of what it means to be a concubine. The key test is whether there was or wasn't a marriage. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
There are likely different countries with different conceptions of what marriage is, so that's not a very good test. I wonder if it's very helpful to have 2 properties in this domain. What's the advantage? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I think we should merge them into a single "Partner" item and have specifiers to signify the nature of the relationships. Common-law marriage for example is still a legal partnership that could be considered marriage, even if its not the same kind as a regular marriage.*Treker (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Similar data-item

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Q2098700 and Q1426123. Is one a subcategory of the other?Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could the bots do the same work in fewer edits more efficiently?

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

It seems to me that the lag problems comes from the number of edits more than the content of these edits. So couldn't we avoid some of the lag by asking the bots with many edits to do their work in fewer edits? There are very many edits where a bot first add a statement, and then maybe qualifier in another edit, and then add a reference in yet another edit. Or they add multiple labels or descriptions with only one label or description per edit. If they did all work on the same item at once there would be much fewer edits – and the server load would be lower with the same work done. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Short answer is yes, but whether this would make a noticeable difference I'm not sure. I just finished updating my bot (approval pending) and took this into consideration. You can see (Special:Contributions/SilentSpikeBot) I'm just making two edits for each claim I'm editing. Rather than adding qualifiers individually, I just make a new duplicate claim (copy qualifiers, sources, rank, value, snakType) and then locally edit the data before adding as a new claim and removing the old one. Result is 2 edits per claim, rather than multiple edits for individual qualifiers. The downside to this is that it's not as clear what I've changed using the diff view. So you might ask: why I don't just make 1 edit to update the existing claim? That's unfortunately down to the Pywikibot (Q15169668) implementation (which I suspect a lot of bots are probably using) where I don't believe it's currently possible to edit an existing claim locally and only upload all the changes as one edit. --SilentSpike (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
You could use the editEntity function in pywikibot that maps to the wbeditentity API action to make those changes in one edit, but you’d need to change quite a lot of things. That function actually allows you to change all data you find in an item in one edit. Not sure whether it's worth to use it here, though. —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also QuickStatements adds qualifiers and references in separate edits. I would guess that it and many bots use the API functions wbcreateclaim, wbsetqualifier and wbsetreference. To create a new statement complete with all qualifiers and references you don't have to get and edit all data of the entity with wbeditentity. You can also use the simpler wbsetclaim. If processes like QuickStatements and bots did that, they would also have the benefit of doing the jobs much faster with the same number of edits per minute. And the server lag might be lower. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MisterSynergy: Thanks for the heads up, missed that method while trawling the source. See it now defined under class WikibasePage. I'll look into that. --SilentSpike (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Answering the question: it depends. I have observed that the lag starts to grow when bots create new items with all the data in a single request, doing so many times per minute (public live data). So I believe this is about the amount of data rather than number of edits per unit of time. On the other hand, narrow API calls make better edit summaries which can be useful if you search for specific edits in contributions or history. Hopefully, it's going to be better with next development. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was told that the WDQS update process already waits a short time after an item is edited before processing it, so if any more edits to same item follow immidiately there are processed together. So doing less edits as proposed will not mean fewer WDQS updates. That also explains Matěj Suchánek's observations: If the bot can create or edit more different items per minute, it will probably increase the lag. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Emerge Karl II (Q548215) with Charles II (Q42396638)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They both represent "Charles II" （查理二世）。—— Eric Liu（留言．百科用戶頁） 05:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Déjà vécu / déjà visité data

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several years ago I set about collecting data from Internet users concerning their déjà vécu and déjà visité experiences. The same questions were asked about both forms of déja experience in an effort to determine what their similarities and differences are. Two papers were subsequently published, the first one in the Journal of Consciousness Studies (21 [11-12]:7-18, 2014), and the second in Explore (14[7-8]:277-282, 2018). Altogether there are 3258 data sets (ca. 80 questions per set) arranged in an Excel spreadsheet. Would there be interest in my uploading this data onto Wikidata and, if so, how should I go about it. Please reply to atf@alum.mit.edu. Thank you.

@ArtFunk: Having skimmed your paper, it seems that your dataset isn't a good fit for Wikidata. Generally, Wikidata stores information about individually notable entities and the connections between them, while your data seems to be tabular information about research subjects. This is not to say you shouldn't release your data; it would just be preferable to put it on Figshare (Q17013516) or another scientific data repository. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikidata has found Ferns (Q80005) on 94 languages of Wikipedia. Yet on English Wikipedia, the Languages section only lists 38. I'm curious why is this inconsistent? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The enwiki interwikilink of fern (Q80005) is en:Polypodiophyta, which redirects to en:Fern. That page itself is connected to Polypodiopsida (Q373615) and gets its interwikilinks from there, not from Q80005. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Images for Wikidata - "Global Young Academy"

Latest comment: 5 years ago59 comments14 people in discussion

Recently, OTRS has received several photo submissions, such as ticket:2020022410001019‎, alluding to a "Global Young Academy project" that says it "highlights global excellence and diversity in science by uploading notable members from science academies around the world" and, to that end, "are currently uploading the profiles and pictures of around 50 national young academies from across the globe‎".

However, none have Wikipedia articles anywhere that meet notability requirements.

Has an exception been made for this "Global Young Academy project" to host their photos at Wikidata anyway? JGHowes (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@JGHowes: An exception to what? In any case, images are hosted at Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, the policy at OTRS photo-submissions is not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article. In recent weeks, we've received some 20 photo submissions for people not having Wikipedia bios. When the submitter has been informed that the image cannot be accepted for this reason, their response has typically been that it's not for Wikipedia, just the Wikidata page they've created about the person. So is there an exception we OTRS agents should be aware of, whereby the Global Young Academy project creates a Wikidata entry and submits a photo for Commons solely for use as a P18 statement on the wikidata page they've created? JGHowes (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
From a structure data perspective, if the entities are notable per our local standards then that should be fine. But as the hoster of the images, Commons is free to create its own standard for whether images can be hosted there. Do you have specific items referenced from the emails? I'd be happy to check to ensure that they do meet the local notability standard. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
See for example Renard Siew (Q65095592) created as Global Young Academy (Q5570796). Now Renard Slew has emailed his photo to Commons photo-submissions via said OTRS ticket for this Wikidata page. JGHowes (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Are you supposed to reveal this level of detail? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
"policy at OTRS photo-submissions is not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article" If so, then the policy is guaranteed to be harmful to this project, and our wider movement. OTRS should accept any genuinely-free file that meets Wikimedia Commons' purpose, and which are unlikely to be deleted there. That incudes not only images that have (I paraphrase) "educational purpose", but also those which are used on Wikidata, Wikispecies or Wikisource, or other sister projects. Who set that policy, and where did they consult with the projects that use images? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of the policy, it appears that the *only* place that there is a "page" of any type on a Wikimedia project is on Wikidata; there is no other place at this time where the subjects of these images have an entry. Thus, perhaps the bigger question is whether or not these individuals meet the Wikidata notability standards, and whether they should have an entry here. The policies of other projects (including OTRS) aren't truly within scope for Wikidata. It doesn't seem appropriate for Wikidata to be a place for young professionals to store their CV, but that's a decision for this project to make. It seems kind of circular that they're looking to upload images to Commons for the purpose of completing their Wikidata entry. Risker (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not really. My understanding is the the Google Knowledge box draws heavily from WD (e.g., [8] and presumably related). But OTRS permission queue shouldn't really have anything to do with the inclusion standards of WD. It should have to do with the inclusion standards of Commons. Good faith inclusion on a sister project automatically puts something within Common's scope, but it doesn't mean that not being on WD automatically means it's outside Common's scope. GMGtalk 20:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@JGHowes, Risker: some people have turned Wikidata into a dumping ground for scientific papers and a phone book for scientists. This is a consequence of that. Multichill (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
A Wikidata entry not linked to any project file is a fine way to avoid the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, IMHO. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Besides, the authors seems not to be familiar with our policies. Some days ago one persone write saying "I'm the author, I'm the photographer" in the middle of the template text. I've asked him how could be possible that he's the photographer if he's in the photo with the arms crossed over the chest. He said something like "of course it's impossible, the photographer is X". Touché!.... --Ganímedes (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@JGHowes: This is probably not the best place to hammer out Commons policy, but where (if anywhere?) did OTRS end up with that very limiting policy? I'm completely with Andy on this. I'm an admin on Commons, and I would strenuously object to that policy. I doubt that even half of our pictures on Commons relate to any Wikipedia article, unless you count, say, that any picture of any part of a city corresponds to us having an article on that city, or other reductio ad absurdum interpretations (which would lead to a far more liberal policy for OTRS, anyway). For example, we do not have, nor are we likely to have, a Wikipedia article on this long-gone Lutheran church in Seattle, but we'd certainly want more pictures of it. I could come up with a hundred similar examples. - Jmabel (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
While I understand the concerns of those wondering how OTRS came up with the *UPLOAD* procedure (for requests being sent to a queue that is supposed to deal with permissions only), that's a discussion to have between the Commons community and OTRS. Realistically, the Commons admins participating in the OTRS discussion are saying pretty clearly that they don't want automatic uploading of images on request, only for them to have to deal with junk images on that project; personal photographs are borderline at the best of times, and there's no reason why the person doesn't create their own account and upload it themselves. Whether or not the process should be tweaked is not really in scope for Wikidata. What *is* in scope for Wikidata is whether or not you want to have these entries on *this* project. I have the impression from some of the posts above that there is a level of dissatisfaction with random professionals creating Wikidata entries about themselves (or having them created for them), but that's an issue this project can and should decide for itself, and it has absolutely nothing to do with OTRS or with uploading of images to Commons. Risker (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Repeating what I said on the email thread, if it's used/usable on WD, then it's in-scope for Commons. Part of our mission is to support our sister projects. Whether it's in your scope is a decision that the local community has to make, and it is not in the remit of OTRS or Commons to decide that. GMGtalk 01:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Some people have turned Wikidata into a "dumping ground" for artworks and a "phone book" for artists. Different strokes, eh? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
"The policies of other projects (including OTRS) aren't truly within scope for Wikidata." When they have potential to impact this project - for instance, by disallowing images we might wish to display - then they are very much in scope for discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Who wants to display these files here? Why are these files different from any other personal photo? --Ganímedes (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
They are different because they depict the subjects we document. Note also that the OTRS restriction described near the top of this section is not limited to photographs of people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
But who says we must document them? There's no reason to keep their q if there is no article linked to them., IMHO. I see all this as great self-promotion. Do we don't ave guidelines for that either? --Ganímedes (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
There is no must. But WD:N (a policy, not mere guideline) gives us scope. It is not for OTRS to override. Your "no reason to keep their q if there is no article linked to them" belies a gross misunderstanding of Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
You continue writing in plural. Are you talking in someone else name? --Ganímedes (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I see you no longer wish to debate what I have to say; nor can you refute it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, you're who's avoiding to answer. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to point out where that has occurred. You, on the other hand, have ignored "WD:N ... gives us scope". It is not for OTRS to override.; and you have yet to address your misunderstandings that Wikipedia links are a requirement; or that Wikipedia's notability policies have any bearing here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Feel free to point out where that has occurred" No response from user:Ganímedes, and no evidence of me "avoiding to answer". No acknowledgment nor attempt to refute that their "no reason to keep their q if there is no article linked to them" is a gross misrepresentation of Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@JGHowes: answered you in the parallel discussion that you has unfortunately started on Commons, quoting OTRS guidelines. I don't pretend to continue arguying with you in circles. It's exhausting, and pointless. Besides, I'm not following this thread anymore. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

See also related discussion on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Having opened this discussion, it would appear that a clarification might be helpful. My question pertained to uploading of files about non-notable persons and it was in that context that I was referring to OTRS policy about photos of persons, not files in general. (Perhaps "policy" is too strong and "guideline" would have been a better choice of words): "If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have an article for), it might be best not to upload it. Use the 'no article, not notable' boilerplate."[9] This pertains only to files of people and should not be misconstrued to say more than what was intended. Anyway, the question remains: Is this Wikidata entry Q65095592 deemed to meets requirement #1 of WD:N? JGHowes (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've asked in the parallel discussion that has unfortunately started on Commons: "When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted?"> IT would be good to have some answers. [Also, note that the OTRS wiki page on which the policy guideline you cite lives is not publicly viewable. That guideline was apparently written in 2010, two years before Wikidata existed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@JGHowes: I don't know if anybody else answered you on this, but Renard Siew (Q65095592) satisfies WD:N on grounds #2 (based on external id's) and #3 (as the author of A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). (Q38588420). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Finally, a cogent answer without all the grandstanding. Thank you @ArthurPSmith: and Ajraddatz. Accordingly, the file has now been processed as File:Renard Siew2.jpg. To avoid future misunderstandings, it would be a good idea to update the guidance provided to the OTRS team regarding Wikidata entries. JGHowes (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I gave you the first of several cogent answers 21 hour ago: "OTRS should accept any genuinely-free file that meets Wikimedia Commons' purpose, and which are unlikely to be deleted there. That incudes not only images that have (I paraphrase) "educational purpose", but also those which are used on Wikidata, Wikispecies or Wikisource, or other sister projects.". You've also been pointed - here and on Commons - to both WD:N and c:COM:SCOPE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Just a note that I've checked the example page listed above, and the subject is indeed notable under WD:N criteria #2 (identifiable with the Google Scholar and ORCID Ids). Wikidata is intentionally more inclusive than most Wikipedias because our aim is to build a database, rather than just encyclopaedic entries. I cannot dictate how Commons should implement its policies, but I do think that if the goal is to support sister projects, these images should be retained. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Global Young Academy

A description of Global Young Academy (Q5570796) may be found at en:Global Young Academy. As:

members are expected to be several years past their doctoral studies [and] capped at 200 [and are recruited] based on scientific excellence, after a process of nominations from senior scientists, national societies, and self-nominations, together with peer review by members

then it seems highly likely that the 200 members and 258 alumni ([10], [11]) meet our notability requirements (and are far from "random professionals"); in which case we definitely want freely-licensed images of each of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notability guidelines in Wikipedia says they must been covered by independent sources. To bring their resumes here avoid this. Does this make them notables? --Ganímedes (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Notability guidelines in Wikipedia have bugger all to do with commons or wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
So they can create self-promotion q easily just because nothing says otherwise. I've got a degree in biochemistry (true). Can I create my q here and add my photo too? --Ganímedes (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
"they"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The Young Academy Scientist who're sending the photos and creating the elements here. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Evidence of any of them doing so? But yes, if they meet the criteria, they may. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to jump in - thanks for all your volunteer work on this, your dedication is very impressive! Here's the list of young academies network: https://globalyoungacademy.net/national-young-academies/ Anyone who might contact you regarding picture verification has authored at least one important publication (at least enough to get selected nationally as among their country's most excellent young scientists in terms of research & societal impact). Most are professors/have wikipedia pages - we're trying to make those from underrepresented locations more visible (also often a language barrier!). Happy to hear suggestions about how to streamline this. The vision is to fully digitise national science academies, starting with the young ones =). I'm very glad that we have supporters in the wiki communities for this! --PPEscientist (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is the trick: according to our guidelines (Wikidata: Notability): "An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals, that is if it meets at least one of the criteria below: 1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." So, adding a file to Wikimedia Commons and linking it here, they've got a notable q. So, they become notables. This is how this works, right? --Ganímedes (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is that what WD:N says? WD:N is how it works. You seem to be distracting us significantly from the issue of OTRS policy and how it affects this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to jump in - thanks for all your volunteer work on this, your dedication is very impressive! Here's the list of young academies network: https://globalyoungacademy.net/national-young-academies/ Anyone who might contact you regarding picture verification has authored at least one important publication (at least enough to get selected nationally as among their country's most excellent young scientists in terms of research & societal impact). Most are professors/have wikipedia pages - we're trying to make those from underrepresented locations more visible (also often a language barrier!). Happy to hear suggestions about how to streamline this. The vision is to fully digitise national science academies, starting with the young ones =). I'm very glad that we have supporters in the wiki communities for this! --PPEscientist (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Zzzz. Commons has its own notability policy. From that - at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose - "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". Might a mugshot of "members ... expected to be several years past their doctoral studies [and] capped at 200 [and are recruited] based on scientific excellence, after a process of nominations from senior scientists, national societies, and self-nominations, together with peer review by members" pass that requirement? Very probably. Next. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
As U wish. Commons has also another policies, but that's not the point here. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The first few listed for Australia, Patrick Cobbinah (Q64907170), Cheng Zhiming (Q64910913), Aysha Fleming (Q57304466), Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk (Q65007511), I think would easily meet notability in the way it's applied to other researchers. Ghouston (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am livid. Commons is to support its sister projects, it is NOT exclusively for Wikipedia. All members of the Global Young Academy are scientists, they often have publications and yes Wikidata supports images. It is not for Commons to destroy the efforts of what they are not familiar with. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

GerardM, I do not reply to obscene emails and have blocked receiving any further emails from you. JGHowes (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata it's only a database. There's nothing in those elements but a name and a date. Not even a source. Why these elements should be kept? --Ganímedes (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Wikidata it's [sic] only a database" So? "nothing in those elements" Which "elements"? Did you look at the examples posted by Ghouston, above? They are far better populated than your comment suggests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

GYA 2

Thanks all, I post this here (sorry, I'm bad at this - some wikimedia friends told me about this discussion so I came to check it out ) Happy to connect everyone to the wonderful world of science academies :)) --> Dear all, thanks a lot for all of your engagement and countless volunteer hours. I'm representing this effort of the Global Young Academy as well as many different other networks who have joined this effort to bringing excellent young scientists to wikidata (from India to Iraq to Italy). We are happy to receive advice on how to streamline this process. We are asking that scholars of national young academies themselves upload their pictures rather than doing this in bulk. Most scholars are professors, all of them are prize-winning scientists and all have wikidata entries now (Wikipedia pages exist for a great number of them, but these are not written by us (see here: https://w.wiki/DQr)). The Bangladesh Young academy https://nyabangladesh.org/ (to take one example out of 50) is one of the first contributors. Sooner or later, all 50+ national young academies will be submitting pictures. The plan is to then engage our senior academies and senior academy networks to do likewise, as well as the framework organizations through which they are organized (InterAcademy Partnership, ALLEA, African Academy of Sciences, Royal Academy...). So we are very much interested in setting up a process by which this is streamlined. Apologies for the many individuals who do not send in photos with the correct specifications, we want to support wikimedia as much as possible, help us to do this. PPEscientist (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PPEscientist: Thank you for your collaborative approach to this. I'm sorry you're having to be exposed to the above nonesesene, but until it is satisfactorily resolved, I suggest you do not ask anyone else to submit images. Once it is, and you're ready to start again, you're welcome to refer people to this page (or to borrow text from it); that should help them to understand the issuse of authorship of images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@PPEscientist: I'm speaking here mainly as a Commons admin, even if the discussion is on Wikidata. A few considerations to streamline this:
  1. Always be sure to distinguish author (photographer) from subject. Copyright belongs to the author, not the subject, and that is the person from whom we need permission.
  2. If one person is in a position to take multiple photos, that often makes matters simpler, since there are fewer separate grants of permissions to process.
  3. The simplest way (from Commons' point of view) to provide an appropriate license is for some other trusted site, or site clearly under control of the author/photographer, to indicate the license. It might be simpler for your organization to host photos of scholars of national young academies on your own website, with appropriate licenses indicated; those could then by used as a source for Commons, and anyone (not just the members of the OTRS team) could handle the uploads, without involving email at all. You could use a similar method to indicate licenses on your site to what we do on Commons.
  4. Failing that, you might create a customized version of the standard OTRS form that would let someone indicate author, subject, Wikidata item (if that has already been created), and one or more links (including presumably something linking to a site of your organization, and something for their university affiliation or affliations, and their prizes/awards/publications) indicating notability. - Jmabel (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
This at least has some sense: if it's up to OTRS, avoid to use OTRS to ask for agents to upload the files in your name. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@PPEscientist: Why are you suggesting people submit the photos via OTRS rather than simply uploading the images to Commons themselves? As most of them are obvious selfies there isn't any issue that the copyright holder and the subject are not one and the same person. Nthep (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Many are not "obvious", and others are not even selfies. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for these helpful suggestions, I've amended our communication on this. We definitely don't want to cause a burden, so we'll ask them to upload themselves and not ask pictures to be uploaded (with scholars as diverse as from Iraq to Panama, it's also tricky to control this, just fyi, and language is frequently an issue). This is all a pretty good test case for our big aims to bring entire science organizations (think Leopoldina/Royal academy) on wikidata/wikimedia in the hopefully mid to long term future. We started with national young academies as these are typically more diverse in terms of gender/discipline/age than the senior academies. If anyone wants to join & help, let us know. PPEscientist (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #404

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
404 - newsletter not found
  • Development
    • Provide better redirect for statement nodes (phab:T203397)
    • Wikidata Bridge: style fixes and font size adjustments (phab:T239421, phab:T243192)
    • making the edit based on the user's fixed/updated choice (phab:T238662)
    • research how to do reference rendering (phab:T244987)
    • showing the loading bar while saving (phab:T237433)
    • More work on wb_terms table and fixing various issues
    • Removing all of pre-entity source based federation code
    • Fixing various issues causing errors in production
    • Investigate on an issue with pasting exact Commons file title (phab:T196165)
    • Update the APIs to specify an errorformat and a uselang parameter (phab:T242769)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


need assistance with linking item to entry

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

hi. I am trying to link item Q86242945 to the article English Wikipedia page on "Live streaming world news". I keep getting an error message. could you please assist? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sm8900: Fixed--Trade (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Trade:, thanks, that's terrific. by the way, would you happen to be able to please tell me the steps involved? or alternately, simply what I had been doing wrong? I really appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
actually, I just viewed the diffs for your edits, so I assume that illustrates the steps that I should follow for this. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Sm8900:If you go to Preferences > Gadgets there should be a gadget called 'Merge: This script adds a tool for merging items'. Activate that and there should be a menu at the right corner of the page called 'More'. Move your mouse over there and you will see a option called 'Merge with...' --Trade (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

country for sport (P1532) v country (P17)

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Which property should i use when creating a item about a national sports team (Q1194951)? Both? --Trade (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

country for sport (P1532) is more appropriate I think. It's a subproperty of country (P17). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Welp if nobody minds i'll just remove Property:Country from the items. --Trade (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes a country is a country only when it comes to sport, like Puerto Rico, and then there's cans-of-worms like Taiwan. Partially why there's a distinction I think? Moebeus (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to edit label?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am trying to edit the label of Category:Officiers of the Ordre des Palmes Académiques (Q8692654) to read (in English) "Category:Officers of the Ordre des Palmes Académiques", but when I try to publish the edit, I get the (cryptic) error message: "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed." Can anyone suggest the correct method of making this edit (or does it need a user with admin privileges to do it)? --R'n'B (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

There're several true duplicates of this item so the item can not be edited because of this will result in sitelink conflict.--GZWDer (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Flat-Earthers

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

What's the proper property to link Mike Hughes (Q47546026) and flat Earth (Q660936)?--GZWDer (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GZWDer:On Paul Watson (Q201670) they have used movement (P135) to link him to conservation movement (Q1088777) and environmental movement (Q8189417) I think that might be viable option Andber08 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've had similar thoughts. Only other thing I could come up with would be to make a "flat earther" "occupation". It's not really an occupation but we already have conspiracy theorist (Q19831149) which isn't really an occupation either. movement (P135) is probably better though. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest Mike Hughes (Q47546026) occupation (P106) conspiracy theorist (Q19831149) with qualifier of (DEPRECATED) (P642) flat Earth (Q660936). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Glossary additions

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Glossary has now entries on:

Please double-check, proofread as needed. --- Jura 12:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

And:

--- Jura 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also:

--- Jura 09:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

What is the best primary title for an entry for an obituary?

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

What is the best primary title for an entry for an obituary? "Old Man Dies" the title of the obit in the newspaper? or "John Q. Smith (1880-1925) obituary"? or "John Q. Smith obituary"? Have we harmonized on any style? --RAN (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The "title" statement value should probably be the title in the newspaper. I would generally favor that as the label as well; the description could maybe be more a standardized format with the name and dates. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
19xx obituary of John Doe (18xx - 19xx) published in The New York Times How does this sound? --Trade (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly we have obituaries published years before the actual death and some even years afterwards. --- Jura 09:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
i.e. "obituary" is generally sufficient instead of "19xx obituary". --- Jura 06:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The title (P1476) should be whatever the actual title is in the source ("John Doe (18xx - 19xx)" or "actor John Doe dead at 99" or "Recent deaths" or whatever). Only in cases where the death notice lacks an official title should a more generic description ("obituary of John Q. Smith") be used as the Label, with title (P1476) set to no value or unknown value. -Animalparty (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
A problem we have with many entries generated by bot is that the journals they come from usually include a section header "Obituary" and then the name of the person with their lifespan. The items created here sometimes include just one, the other or both.--- Jura 06:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

giving consumers better opportunities for making informed decisions about which products and services to consume

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello all, this is a post to ask you for your input on initiatives aimed at getting more data online, and in a more structured manner, about products and services, including reviews about those products and services. I am familiar with a few past and current initiatives that aim to do this, e.g.:

I've noted that some people, including myself, are interested in exploring the possibilities for breathing new life into what these initiatives are trying to accomplish: getting more data about products and services online, and in a more structured manner, using the power of wiki. See here and here, for example. The end-goal of these initiatives is, imo, to give consumers better opportunities for making informed decisions about which products and services to consume and how they wish to consume them. For many products and services information to allow consumers to make more informed choices is currently still absent, so this is a goal for which i think there is still much to be gained. This post is to ask your thoughts on this: do you agree that these goals are indeed worthy of more attention and that there is much to be gained in this areas? Are you aware of any more past or current initiatives that are aiming to do this, besides the ones listed above? Have there been discussions on how to give rise to these goals within Wikidata? What are the best ways for moving forward you think: a separate initiative or more work on the existing subsets of Wikidata for products and services? Have there been successes to date in getting data like these onto Wikidata? What have the most important challenges been? And what are potential business models for such an initiative, i.e., how would we fund the cost of building the ultimate goal of such an initiative: a wiki of all products and services, with items and properties developed by and for users, specific to product- and service-categories, including reviews by and for users? Any input would be much appreciated!! --Wikirik123 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a rough idea of the number of items you would need to create to do this well? I'm guessing at least in the millions, possibly hundreds of millions - so a separate Wikibase instance federated with Wikidata might make the most sense. See the Wikibase home page; also Wikidata:Federation input for how people are thinking they may want close federation to work (ideally). ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great sum up Wikirik123! I would just correct that it's already possible to add any kind of products on OpenFoodFacts (OFF), and not just food products. Also, I would point that OFF has also started creating bridges to Wikidata, adding new properties such has Property:P5930 and Property:P1821; which amounts to mapping the metadata but not adding the products themselves in Wikidata. I don't think that would be necessary since OFF can provide this database and exposition of each product to the web, with a unique identifier. Going beyond that, I agree that a new instance of Wikibase (which I have experience in) would be the best idea, with the intended goal of making that the new engine and source of truth for the OFF project. Johanricher (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, thanks for your input and great suggestions/thoughts!! really appreciated!! Re ArthurPSmith: I don't know, but great question. Perhaps we will find an answer to this question throught this new project! My guess would be that it's closer to the hundreds of millions than millions (perhaps even billions or tens/hundreds of billions). Thanks again for your suggestions, really useful.
A followup question Johanricher: i think one of the great powers of wiki is that in addition to users contributing data, users also contribute to the structure of those data (e.g. in defining specific categories/classes and properties for specific items or groups of items). What i see before me in a future wiki for products is that people who know a lot about product X, let's say TVs, discuss together all the useful properties and categories/classes there are for TVs. And that the people who know a lot about Lego sets, do that for Lego sets. Etc. I am a big fan of OFF, but since they ask users to provide data for a set group of product categories, that are all very relative to food items but not necessarily to other items, this makes me wonder if OFF is the right place for entering such data for products more broadly. I also think that even for food, users could have a lot to contribute about the useful properties and categories/classes that there are (i could imagine, for example, there being quite different things of interest for vegetables than for meat, and even different for food products in Holland than in Ghana, for example). I must admit i do also see the value of a simple interface like that for your everyday-user, but perhaps it is a good idea to combine the 2 in a future "product wiki"? With a more extensive interface for the hobbyists, who enjoy thinking up and discussing new product(group)-specific properties and categories/classes etc, and a simple interface for everyday-users? Something to think about. And great that you have experience in setting up new wiki instances, that will be useful in this project, if you will be willing to help! --Wikirik123 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone peek at full_work_available at Property:P973 and described_at_URL Property:P973 and they both have a suggestion_constraint called "archive URL". Can someone explain to me why we need this? It seems like something that can be handled by a bot, if we want to add a Wayback Machine link for every url entry that has one. I do not see the utility of adding an error flag to every url entry we have in Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's a suggestion, not an error. Isn't that the same question as we had with another property? I don't think the qualifiers suggested on that property are particularly useful, but maybe the user who added them wants to do some work in field .. --- Jura 09:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Jura1: I might be able to do work if Wikidata would stop glitching so much. --Trade (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Recently someone proposed Wikidata:Property proposal/EcuRed. I'm not against this specific proposal, and we have many other properties similar to this like Vikidia article and RationalWiki ID. However I doubt whether it is really a good idea to create a property for each open wikis, especially those comparable to Wikipedia (i.e. not subject-specific and not having an dedicated professional team to edit or review). One of declined case is Baidu Baike ID, which mentions various issues may potentially affect proposal (also likely affecting properties about other open wikis):

  • advertisement and paid editing - many sites do not care about paid editing, unlike Wikimedia project
  • content is not open - most of other sites linked from external ID are also not open
  • copyvio
  • misleading material

I think we should really consider which wikis are suitable for a property. This obviously not includes every wiki (you can create an open wiki in less than 10 minutes). Some cases for discussion, which are wikis without properties or property proposals:

Question is: How is some kind of wikis that should have properties different from others? Should we define some criteria for inclusion?

--GZWDer (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

In principle, for an exact correspondence between two items, properties are not needed, just use exact match (P2888). I would even argue to move external IDs to exact match (P2888) if there are less than 1k of them to be expected. So, instead of deciding from content/quality why not set a number above which existing exact match (P2888) statements can be converted to a dedicated external ID? Automating this decision process is desirable. The actual conversion of exact match (P2888) is also easily automated. --SCIdude (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I just wanna point out that LyricsWiki have been locked down and closed for all editing for quite some time now. This was partially caused due to Wikia ToS changes regarding the hosting of copyrighted and offensive material (see pornogrind (Q584752) as an example why). --Trade (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
FYI Wikidata property linking to external MediaWiki wiki (Q62619638) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Q62619638 (there is currently no "Wikidata property linking to external wiki" item). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
But my question is: which wikis should we have a property.--GZWDer (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Converting a Wikipedia watchlist to a Wikidata watchlist

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have got a question which I can not answer, but may be someone here can. Can a Wikipedia user easily convert their Wikipedia watchlist to a Wikidata watchlist, i.e. can they watch on Wikidata the items for the same articles they watch on Wikipedia? Lest us assume for simplicity that the watchlist only contains articles and that the user is not a tech genius (I might be accidentally wrong about the second assumption though, but are there any layman solutions - of course one may write a script and convert one to another?) Direct pasting of the watchlist does not work.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Ymblanter: in your preferences, for example at en:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist for the english language version, you can activate a checkbox, in order to also get changes from wikidata for all articles on your watchlist, so from my point of view, there would be no need for converting a watchlist. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but the person specifically wanted to separate the watchlists, they are aware of this possibility.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following could work:

--- Jura 15:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Additional interface for edit conflicts on talk pages

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry, for writing this text in English. If you could help to translate it, it would be appreciated.

You might know the new interface for edit conflicts (currently a beta feature). Now, Wikimedia Germany is designing an additional interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. This interface is shown to you when you write on a discussion page and another person writes a discussion post in the same line and saves it before you do. With this additional editing conflict interface you can adjust the order of the comments and edit your comment. We are inviting everyone to have a look at the planned feature. Let us know what you think on our central feedback page! -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) 14:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bulk fixing error

Latest comment: 5 years ago39 comments7 people in discussion

It looks like a lot of bot-created articles from the journal The Art Bulletin (Q15766110) are listed as instance of scholarly article (Q13442814) instead of academic journal article (Q18918145). E.g. A Romanesque Fresco in the Plandiura Collection (Q57684351) and Whither Art History in a Globalizing World (Q57678930) before I fixed them. I'm not sure if any article ever published in this journal could be considered a "scientific article" but if there are any, I'd expect them to be quite rare. What would be the best way to bulk change these entries? And is there a way to keep this from happening again? I don't know the workflows for the automated article-item creation. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Calliopejen1: The workflow tends to be a WDQS report such as the below to find the items at issue; and then use of Quickstatements to fix the issue. QS, in essence, wants comma or tab seperated value lists, of triples to be added to, or triples to be removed from, items. I'll amend the Art Bulletin set now.
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P1433 wd:Q15766110;
        wdt:P31 wd:Q13442814.
  filter not exists {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q18918145 .}
  SERVICE wikibase:label {    bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .  } 
}
Try it!
--Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Tagishsimon: This also applies to articles from The Seventeenth Century (Q15763184). Could you fix those as well? I just asked User:Sic19 to help me identify any other journals this could apply to, because it looks like these two at least started with batch edits he did, and I suspect there could be a lot more.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
And here's a search that identifies more articles that are likely misclassified (along with other articles in the journals where they're published).[12] This seems like a very widespread issue... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'll do The Seventeenth Century (Q15763184) but note that the edits are only slowly trickling in (big queue at Quickstatements [13] & intermittently throttled API) so it may take a day or more for any set to be done. But I've got you; art history generally != science. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Obviously no rush. Will keep you posted on other affected journals. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Calliopejen1: Presumably you are not aware that academic journal article (Q18918145) is a subclass of work of science (Q11826511) (see https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?lang=en-gb&q=Q11826511&rp=279)? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 22:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Sic19: scholarly article (Q13442814) is a subclass of academic journal article (Q18918145) which implies there are some academic journal articles that are not scientific articles. Seems like something has gone wrong with subclasses/definitions here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think scholarly work (Q55915575) should be a subclass of work of science (Q11826511) -- there is plenty of scholarly work that is not scientific... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC) ([14] this change seems like a faulty edit Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC))Reply
I'm reverting that referenced edit now. The real cause of the problem seems to be what Ghouston identified below. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
There has been some confusion about the scholarly article (Q13442814), probably because somebody changed the English label from "scientific article" to "scholarly article" in 2018, and the subclasses ended up getting reversed. I reset it to its current state in January. Ghouston (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Ghouston: Yikes. Does that mean that most of the bulk-added articles from scholarly (but non-scientific) journals between 2018 and January 2020 may now have the incorrect value for "instance of"? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, but it wouldn't be surprising if at least some of the bots importing articles use the same instance for all. Ghouston (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Ghouston: The issue is that even if editors chose the "right" (looking) one for bulk imports (i.e. the one that used to be called "scholarly article" and now is called "scientific article") their choice would be wrong given how things stand now. I assume this affects thousands and thousands and thousands of items... Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
True. They could base it perhaps on whether the journal itself is a academic journal (Q737498) or a scientific journal (Q5633421), although not every journal may be set up to use the most appropriate. Ghouston (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Boo. I just spot checked some journals from that list and it appears that that most of the humanities journals were themselves bot-created and incorrectly called instance of scientific journal. :( There may need to be a manual review of the list of journals to properly categorize the ones that appear humanities related, and then once that is done try to fix the articles in the journals. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Related request: Can someone fix my code here so the search returns the journal names/labels, not just the item numbers? I'm terrible at this.... Trying to figure out which journals may have the most articles with problems. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Calliopejen1: fixed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Couldn't we just change back the label of Q15766110Q13442814 to "scholarly article". I don't really see the value added by changing thousands of items back and forth depending on the current view about the nature of a journal. We would have to check two different P31 values instead of just one. --- Jura 06:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Stopped --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Jura1: I'm adding ~1300 P31s to articles with no P31 fyi; deletions had got ahead of appends at the time I stopped. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, one difference would be that scientific articles are "part of" science, i.e., part of the body of scientific knowledge, and produced by scientists through the application of science, whereas non-scientific articles are not. But "instance of" may not be the best way to represent that: otherwise, we'd possibly want a whole subclass tree of things like "geological article" or "climate change article". Ghouston (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree that "instance of" may not be the best way to represent that. The problem is that science (Q336) has a slightly different notion and scope in different languages (see Talk:Q336) and the English notion seems to be the most narrow one. Given your description in terms of Wikidata items (scholarly article (Q13442814) is part of science (Q336) and produced by scientist (Q901)) I would conclude [from a German language perspective] (inserted for clarification) that an article from an academic journal in the field of "Literaturwissenschaft" (literary studies (Q208217)) is a scholarly article (Q13442814). From my perspective there is actually not something profoundly different. Some time ago I opened a discussion how to represent the subject area of a publication (see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Books/2018#subject_areas_and_genres), I think this is somehow related to the question how to represent that an academic article is from "science" in the strict English meaning or from literary studies. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes "science" in one sense may be just any collection of knowledge, but in modern English it's usually considered to be the study of the natural world, using some kind of rational principles. The exact definition has been argued about extensively with various philosophical schools of thought, and I'm not sure that any overwhelming consensus has been reached (much like a typical Wikidata discussion). But we do have many Wikipedia articles that have been sitelinked together, and in principle are supposed to be roughly about the same topic. Ghouston (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that I read Wikidata labels in German. I see that my comment can be a bit confusing without that. This is really just about the use of words/building of concepts in different languages or "conventions" in different cultures, I did not want to open a philosophical discussion about the essence of knowledge :). In German it is really quite uncontroversial that "Literaturwissenschaft" (literary studies (Q208217)) or "Geschichtswissenschaft" (study of history (Q1066186)) is a "Wissenschaft" (science (Q336)). (As wikidata should be multilingual English should not be the only language taken into consideration here.) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • The obvious difficulty being exactly what's in scope for study: humans are considered part of the natural world, so anthropology and economics and political science can be considered sciences, so why not the study of art and literature too? If you can study the history of the Universe in cosmology, why not study the history of World War II and call it science? It probably just comes down to convention. Ghouston (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
See also exact science (Q475023). It's not true that Germans agree on including soft sciences into the "scientific article" set. This is an old debate. But would the solution not be to import a related meta-ontology? --SCIdude (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
My big-picture thoughts: At this point scholarly article (Q13442814) and academic journal article (Q18918145) are often indiscriminately applied to journal article, regardless of how "science" and "scientific article" are defined. Once we get consensus on the distinction (if any) between scholarly article (Q13442814) and academic journal article (Q18918145), I think bulk edits of some sort will be necessary (either to move all to the more general term, or to appropriately distinguish). Once we get to this, a report by journal of how many scholarly article (Q13442814) and academic journal article (Q18918145) appear in each could be informative. I have no big stake in the meta-question, but I would like the art history articles I keep encountering to be correctly classified, whatever the correct way is. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, note that there are various subclasses of Q13442814 and Q18918145 and these should be appropriately dealt with in whatever taxonomy/conventions for descriptions of items are decided on. E.g. historical article (Q58901470), medical scholarly article (Q82969330). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Then we probably should start by asking if journals should be classified into different groups using "instance of", such as "medical journal" or "economics journal", as well as "scientific journal", or if they should just be academic journals with the field stored in some other property. Ghouston (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The advantage of using some other property is that we can presumably link existing items like "economics" and "climate science", we don't need a parallel set of items just for journals. Ghouston (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Create a help page

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I would like to think that I'm not stupid but I find Wikidata hard to work on. I guess a lot of users come here with a problem and when they can't fix it they just give up and the problem is not fixed unless another user find it.

Also it seems that Wikidata have no forum where users can ask for help or make simple requests.

For example a user thinks that 2 items should be merged and the help page tell users to install a js-script or go through a manual merge process. User think that it is too complex and ask for help. The reply at Help talk:Merge is basicly to go study the manual.

I have the same problem. I have 2 items that I think should be merged but since I don't really edit here on Wikidata I don't feel like spending a lot of time setting figuring out how it works.

My guess is that experienced users can fix it in 30 seconds or explain why items should not be merged.

So why not make a page where users can ask for help? I think that if users come here again and again and gets help at some point they will be more interested in understanding how it works. And if they only come to Wikidata once or twice a year then it is not really taking up a lot of time for the other users here that they have to help the newbies. --MGA73 (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • The problem is that we have many duplicates. With some experience, it's easy to merge them, but it's a basic skill every contributor should have.
A person who identified a duplicate already has some of the needed skill and actually doing the merge would help them acquire it. If an experienced user merges the items instead, the training opportunity is lost.
BTW maybe we should remove the explanation about the manual merge process ... --- Jura 07:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
why can't we make the merge script default enabled? that would seem to make this particular issue more user friendly. BrokenSegue (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Some comments:
  • It is the purpose of help pages to help users, so that they don't have to seek help.
  • Users can always ask for help here or anywhere else appropriate.
  • Users are only told to go to their settings. That is the first thing they should do they first arrive a project anyway.
  • There is also Special:MergeItems. It can error out due to things the js tool handles better but it is a very simple (simpler than editing or asking for help) and the help page does mention it.
  • Merge script is not enabled by default due to concerns over possible misuse.
  • I recall we had a page where merges could be requested. But I don't know where it went.
--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be useful to have a "Request a Merge" page similar to pages for requesting deletions or queries - merging/disambiguating here can be a little complex, and a bad merge has the effect of (after bot action within a day or so) changing a lot of statements that are hard to fully revert. People doing merges should probably have a firm understanding of Wikidata principles like what an item should represent, when it's appropriate to have 2 items rather than 1, policies on disambiguation and name pages, etc. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Jura1: users have different things they master and different things they care about. Some know a lot about copyright. Some take good pictures. Some write good articles. Some know a lot about birds. Some are experts in plants. Some like to clean up stuff and organize stuff. We can't expect everyone to know everything.
I like to work on Commons and one of the things I would like to do is move music files from Wikisource to Commons and it turns out to do so it would be very helpful if we have Commons:Template:Creator for the composers. That template uses Wikidata so when I move a music file from Wikisource to Commons I sometimes need to create the template on Commons. And it turns out someone need to do something on Wikidata after I created the template.
On Commons when someone ask about copyright we don't tell them to go read the laws unless they want to know about it. Often they just want to write an article on Wikipedia and need a photo to put in the article. All they care about if they can use the photo or not.
@Jura1:@BrokenSegue: Removing the manual thing and making the merge gadget standard could help. But won't it be harder to clean up if users merge stuff that should not be merged?
@ArthurPSmith: yes I think sometimes it is better to have users ask for help than having them do bad merges or giving up. --MGA73 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
It seems hard to imagine active contributors who don't know how to merge. --- Jura 19:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I find at least one case every week where someone blanks an item claim-by-claim instead of merging. I even created a template to save myself from having to give the same explanation so often. Bovlb (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please delete Alcremie (Q86503157)

Sorry, I created this page by mistake. Please delete it. Thank you. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 霜奶仙 (talk • contribs) at 2020-02-27 10:58 (UTC).

Representing recipes from Wikibooks Cookbooks in various languages in Wikidata

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For providing background:

This is a question that was asked in 2017.

On a similar topic there has been a related question from the same year that was asked and where a conversation developed on how to represent processes, like recipes, in Wikidata.

I'm editing in both the English and the Swedish Wikibooks(although I'm a very new user regarding Cookbook projects) and I'm wondering if I can start adding wikidata items for individual recipes:

Now for my question:

Can I add Wikidata items for recipes I create, ie. this recipe I created(which is still a draft but I'm going to spend more time completing it) 10 days ago "Cookbook:Salmon with Rice and Sauce". If it had an item on Wikidata it could(or not, depending on if I got this right or wrong, or parts thereof) contain has part(s) (P527)

What do you think about this, can I add Wikidata items for recipes I create in Wikibooks?(and for other recipes that exist in Wikibooks?) Datariumrex (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is something what I think that it is interesting. The example above why there are doubts is a good one. I think it is not easy to find the right item. For a specific fish there is no item usually in Wikidata. The usually used name for a fish is in some cases not the real scientific name of a fish. I think it were great to find a solution for that. So this is something you need to check before adding your recipes here. How do you plan to show the steps that need to be done to get the menue the recipe is about. It is something that should be defined. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata Languages Landscape dashboard

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wikidata languages as obtained from clustering across their Jaccard distances

Hello all,

A new dashboard got released for Wikidata’s birthday, and I realized that it was not properly announced here - sorry for that, let’s catch up :)

The Wikidata Languages Landscape dashboard provides insights into the ways languages are organized and used in Wikidata and across the Wikimedia projects that reuse Wikidata. It relies on different data sources: the Wikidata dumps, various datasets obtained directly from the Query Service, and datasets on Wikidata entity reuse statistics obtained from the Wikidata Concepts Monitor.

The dashboard provides different features:

  • The ontology tab, visualizing the graph of Wikidata ontology regarding languages
  • The language/class tab, generating graphs of items connected to a language, class or category
  • The label sharing graph, showing how similar the languages are judging from the extent of their overlap in what Wikidata items they have labels for
  • The language status tab, focussing on the UNESCO language endangerment categories and the Ethnologue language status
  • The language use tab, representing various indicators of language usage in Wikidata and across the Wikimedia projects

If you have any questions related to this dashboard, feel free to ask.

See also: full documentation of the dashboard. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the Dashboards and the files in csv-Format with the content of the Dashboards. After reading the definitions it is clear for me what the Dashboards are about. Something I am interested in is an overview about the descriptions per language. It were great to have a Dashboard for that topic and list in CSV-Format. There was a language statistic by user Pasleim but the query for updating this timed out and so this overview is not up to date. Because of the existence of more items in Wikidata with the same Label in a language Descriptions are important for choosing the correct item when using the User Interface of Wikidata. At the moment QuickStatements is slow and so I cant add so many descriptions as usual. This is a situation where I hope that it is improved soon. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Help page for determining when to merge

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The current version of Help:Merge has only a cursory mention of how to determine whether two items would be merged. I started User:Vahurzpu/Consider before merging as a draft of an update to that section. I would appreciate any other heuristics, as well as examples of items that look like they should be merged, but shouldn't be. Vahurzpu (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vahurzpu: Thanks, I added a few suggestions. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Plantations and insurrections/revolts

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I am working on the data on plantations in Suriname (South Africa, once part of the colonial empire of the Dutch). On many of these plantations at several times there were (especially during the 19th century > the Dutch only abolished slavery in Suriname in 1863!) revolts/insurrections. I asm looking for a way to incorporate these events in the data of the Wikidata items of teh plantations. Ideally (in my case) I would have a property for insurrection/revolt/fights (?) where I simply can add a date. I was hoping/thinking that maybe creating a Wikidata item for each revolt on every plantation is not the way to go.But I am still hesitating about the right way forward. Ecritures (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

After asking this question here I did find the following value: slave rebellion (Q1155622). Trying to think about the rights ways to incorporate this value (at least I can use qualifiers for start and possibly end time). Maybe simply with significant event (P793) > slave rebellion (Q1155622) ? (Sort of answering my own question, I think ), Ecritures (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Concur with your answer. Lucky you were around to help the OP ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes!! I was happy to help :D Ecritures (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Maybe just a mistyping, but Suriname is in South America, not South Africa. Ghouston (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dump of wikidata redirections

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I am working on getting a programmatic redirection of wikidata IDs but cannot find this information in the current dumps. What's the best way to obtain a mapping from old id -> new id?

See here (this file is currently 534MB).--GZWDer (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks!, is there a way of running this query locally on a dump (e.g. latest-all.json), or is this data stored in a different database that is accessible? Jonathanraiman (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

New deprecation reason "not disclosed"

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have created Q86535474 as one of possible value of reason for deprecated rank (P2241) as a solution of Wikidata:Project_chat#Preventing_ping-pong_protocol. @Succu: nominated the item for deletion. Feel free to discuss whether this is a good idea (to dissuade users from re-adding statements).--GZWDer (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=1125281833"