Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat

Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
From Wikidata
Revision as of 21:12, 8 June 2021 by Tagishsimon (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1437892658 by 95.29.8.106 (talk))

Edit

[Update] Support process review - May 2021

Hello,

This is a short update on the Wikidata support process review we started last year.

As a reminder, our goal is to improve the way we (the Wikidata development team at Wikimedia Germany) currently support the Wikidata community with collecting and reacting to bug reports and feature requests.

Based on your feedback, we have been working on incorporating your inputs into redesigning the Wikidata:Contact the development team page. We suggest changing its name to make it less focused on the development team and a central place for all discussions about technical issues on Wikidata, where editors are welcome to help answer and support others. We introduced sub documentation pages so that it’s hopefully easier to navigate bug reports, and we will work on a better integration of multiple languages.

You can already have a look at Wikidata:Report a technical problem (it’s a draft page, still in construction)

We invite you to let us know if you feel like something important is missing by leaving a comment on this talk page by June 10th.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

Cheers,

-Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • We already have a support page at Wikidata where contributors help each other. It's regrettable that now that there are three full time staff members employed to communicate about technical questions from the community the dedicated page Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team is being discontinued and a second phabricator is set up.
Did any community members specifically request discontinuing Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team? Please point me to the requests.
Maybe a course of improvement for issues directly reported on Phabricator could be to do a periodic summary by staff on these, e.g. 3 months and 1 years after issues where created there. A user reporting issues there found that it's unclear if anything happened when they went through doing that. The same could obviously happen if technical issues were reported in "phabricator 2"/"bugzilla 3". --- Jura 10:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflations of United Kingdom (Q145) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193)

GPinkerton (talk • contribs • logs) has recently been making adjustments to United Kingdom related items that has created conflations. Previously we had United Kingdom (Q145) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) with a transition in 1927 to represent the formal secession of the Irish Free State (Q31747). Now we have both United Kingdom (Q145) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) starting in 1801 and conflating their roles. [1] This breaks a number of citizenship and other related date constraints throughout Wikidata, though GPinkerton cites it as an attempt to repair other citizenship constraints in other areas.[2] This also leaves us with a tangle on what to do with Irish Free State (Q31747). If we merge United Kingdom (Q145) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) to remove the conflation, we will have Irish Free State (Q31747) being the successor to the current United Kingdom (Q145). On a related point, GPinkerton seems to be doing something similar to Parliament of Great Britain (Q2739604).[3] Can I have the community's thoughts on how to untangle this mess? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think From Hill To Shore has got this backwards; the problem here is not conflation but a false dichotomy. The mess is caused by the parameters that flag as a mistake the adding of "citizenship of" properties to people from the the UK who lived before 1927. This is fixing the mess. Since Q145 and Q174193 are the same entity (the latter being a historical long-form name for the former), they should clearly be merged. Absolutely nothing happened to anyone's citizenship in 1927, and anything that creates this impression should be removed. GPinkerton (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the point above, having the Irish Free State as a successor to the present UK is entirely correct. At (or rather shortly after) the partition of Ireland (not in 1927), the present-day UK's territory shrank to exclude the short-lived Southern Ireland, hitherto a part of the UK. But only one new state (the Irish one, in its various iterations) started in the 1920s. The British state (i.e., Q145) carried on regardless in a smaller form. GPinkerton (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. that the errant item was created by a bot in 2012 and a year later humans began to populate it as though it were a country rather than an official name that is now historical. GPinkerton (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the UK was considered a "continuing state" through the creation of the Irish Free State, and the latter was a newly created state. There was no question of "successor states". The 1927 event was just a name change. Ghouston (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily, yes. There was some legislation that went along with it but most external sources treat it as a continuing country. The problem comes with how we represent it in Wikidata. A straight forward merge of the items is impossible as many language versions of Wikipedia have separate articles for before and after 1922/1927 (1922 being the creation of the Irish Free State and 1927 being the formal recognition of the change by the UK). I don't have strong feelings on this except that what we have now is a broken mess; either the previous state is restored or we find an alternative method of untangling the situation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Hill To Shore what legislation? 17 Geo. 5. c. 4 only changes the long name for what it describes itself as the "Parliament of the United Kingdom" and spells out the meaning of the short form accordingly. " Formal recognition of the change by the UK" happened years before, before the Free State even existed. Complete legislative independence was not achieved until later, after the Statute of Westminster made Ireland, Canada, etc. sovereign states. Whatever the case, 1927 is a mistake for anything other than a change of official long name. GPinkerton (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: I am not sure why you are trying to start an argument over this as we are in broad agreement on the sequence of events. There was legislation in the early 1920s to set up the Irish Free State and there was legislation in 1927 to remove a vestigal claim to Ireland implied by the old name. 5 years to formally renounce a claim to territory is fairly quick. The UK only renounced its claim to France in 1800, 242 years after the English lost their last French possession of Calais. However, all of that is irrelevant to the discussion about how we represent the information in Wikidata. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Hill To Shore There was no "vestigial claim to Ireland implied by the name" any more than there is a vestigial claim to Northern Ireland in the name "Republic of Ireland". As you have yourself said just above, the UK existed before 1800 and unquestionably existed before 1921, so as you have now outlined, the way Wikidata handled this before changes were made is ideal: 1707 as the starting date. Later, someone changed this and caused a mess. I have changed it back. Now the errors that accreted while United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) has been treated as historical country are obvious, and should be fixed. GPinkerton (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. There is no dispute on the sequence of events, just that you didn't consider the wider implications for Wikidata by your edit. I don't think that I have had any previous dealings with you but looking at your history on another site makes me wary about engaging with you; I don't need the stress.
I suggest you move on and address the points raised by the editors below. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Hill To Shore "you didn't consider the wider implications for Wikidata by your edit" why do you keep saying this? What are these implications you think I didn't consider and how can they be reconciled? Are you saying that there are insurmountable problems presented by using the proper date? (problems that are not problems in the case of the USA, France, etc. ...) If so, what are they? GPinkerton (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the case, and although Wikidata needs to have items for each name, due to the separate Wikipedia articles, it doesn't need to treat them both as representing sovereign states. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) could be an item for a name, or a period of history, or something Wikipedia-specific. Ghouston (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can also question whether Irish Free State (Q31747) and Ireland (Q27) should be considered separate states, or just a change of constitution and name of a continuing state. Ghouston (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jura. GPinkerton's date changes seem to me to be unhelpful and and their explanation - false dichotomy, fixing the mess - arrogant and ill considered. Although it is the case that modelling of various UK concepts in wikidata leaves something to be desired, unilaterally deciding that one item, which hitherto had been modelled as the entity apparently established in 1927, is now to be the omnibus entity dating back to 1707 is not the way to go; at least, a) not without discussion and consensus for a change and b) not without considering broader aspects than seem to have occurred to GPinkerton, including sitelinks, statements, and uses of the values. The trouble with being here for 5 minutes and deciding on & implementing a change affecting hundreds of thousands of items, is that you're certain to have underestimated the complexity and consequences. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Another example in the likes of the topic which drew many drawbacks is the case of Estonia (Q191) vs Interwar Estonia (Q2174038) [the latter being only historical period (Q11514315) and not historical country (Q3024240) .... Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 12:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bouzinac Estonia beginning in 1918 is instructive; the equivalent of the UK beginning in the 1920s would be Estonia beginning in the 1990s. Obviously both situations would be absurd and counter-factual and would prevent citizens of either country being labelled as such for the majority of both nations' lives. GPinkerton (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Estonia commencing in 1918 may appear absurd and to a certain point, I would have agreed. But Estonian do not share this point of view as they explicitly state that their State has commenced in 1918, as per their state continuity of the Baltic states (Q7603672)... I would say states have juridic continuances with changing of constitutions, losing wars, gaining wars, etc.
    About 1927 : you wouldn't compare UK 1928 and UK 1926 because their range does not have the same span : not the same juridic perimeter, the same area, the same population number... In 1926, Ireland was still officially (to English pow) in the UK. Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 19:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bouzinac Sorry I may have been unclear: to reiterate: I agree with Estonia beginning in 1918. But I fear your comment about 1927 is not correct. UK 1928 and UK 1926 have exactly the same territory. The Irish Free State started to exist in 1922 and its territory stopped being part of the UK at that time. This event was agreed to by the UK in 1921. The UK in 1928 had precisely the same juridic perimeter, the same area, the same population number (more or less!). "In 1926, Ireland was still officially (to English pow) in the UK." is completely untrue. As I say, nothing happened to the UK (or Ireland) in 1927. Partition of Ireland happened years earlier. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagishsimon I don't understand what you mean by "trouble with being here for 5 minutes and deciding on & implementing a change affecting hundreds of thousands of items, is that you're certain to have underestimated the complexity and consequences." Are you saying that I've been here for 5 minutes (why?) or that I don't understand that changing items affects other items? Either way, I don't know why you're making these assumptions. As I have explained, the fictitious 1927 set-up (which does not appear to be justified anywhere) was causing problems, so in order to resolve these problems, (like the problem of the UK not being the state from which Ireland became independent which From Hill To Shore has pointed out) I returned the property to its original state. Whatever "the entity apparently established in 1927" was, it most definitely was not the United Kingdom. GPinkerton (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples for comparison

Jura1 the problem I have been having is that marking, say Henry Napier Bruce Erskine (Q5726222) as country of citizenship (P27) United Kingdom (Q145) is causing an error message because "the earliest start date of the United Kingdom is 12 April 1927". This is obviously wrong. I'm struggling to see how it could be imagined otherwise. Are we to say Calvin Coolidge is not an American citizen because he was born under a different flag to modern Americans? GPinkerton (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to your problem with Henry Napier Bruce Erskine (Q5726222) is to use the other item. No reference to Coolidge needed. --- Jura 20:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: but that misrepresents the subject as a citizen of a state that no longer exists. This is obviously wrong. That is the problem, not a solution to it. Furthermore, it creates the problem that William Erskine (Q8008651), the former's father, would, under the same logic be labelled as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193). But this wrong, because the latter was born before the union of 1800, and it would be quite wrong to think that, doubtless unbeknownst to himself, his citizenship somehow changed midway through his life simply because the official name of the United Kingdom changed. GPinkerton (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nature of citzenship evolves over time. Isn't it that some people with "British" passport aren't even allowed to enter Great Britain? --- Jura 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: I don't know what you're referring to but my answer prima facie would "no, of course not, where did you get that idea?" and then "what relevance would that have to the subject?"? How does it change over time? Are you suggesting people in the 18th and 19th centuries should not have country of citizenship (P27) or? GPinkerton (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solution?

I suggest United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) should lose (if necessary) its current status as an instance of historical country (Q3024240) and sovereign state (Q3624078) and should gain former name (Q29569274) and/or historical period (Q11514315). What problems/objections could this raise? GPinkerton (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. There's a tendency to be overly impressed by name changes, I think, hence the attraction for some people of the idea that a new UK was created in 1927. But there's not even much of a name change, since few use the full name, so the United Kingdom prior to 1927 was still the United Kingdom afterwards. In a previous discussion, I found a reference to support the continuing state point of view: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/643.pdf (a sizeable PDF document), which was a discussion on what would happen if Scotland became independent. 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) 22:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can add anything further on this. My main concern was that a big change affecting an item linked over 1 million times needed to be discussed by the community. We have now had the opportunity for discussion and Ghouston's initial proposal above and your refinement of it seems to be the only option being discussed. Unless one of the others want to step in with a new proposal (even if it is to maintain the status quo) then we have a new consensus. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does that implies for the current Q145#P571 value and for the current Q145#P1365 ? I am not comfortable with a current important state being "simply" preceded by a historical period (Q11514315) (I was rather in favor of a historical country (Q3024240) as a previous value. Okay, the 1927 thing might be a bit far-fetched, hair stretched as we like to say in French, but I would like the current UK item being correctly linked to the previous "real state", perhaps not the 1927stuff. Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 20:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply unconvinced. First, I don't think we've had anything like an articulation of the supposed problem for which a 'solution' is required. The top of the discussion speaks of "The mess is caused by the parameters that flag as a mistake the adding of 'citizenship of' properties to people from the the UK who lived before 1927. This is fixing the mess." which, at best, is to suppose that everyone agrees with an unspoken assertion that there has been just a single sovereign state since 1707 - something which I'd dispute. Nor is assigning country of citizenship to UK people all that hard; three date ranges versus the individual's dob & dod. We've managed to do this - assign an appropriate one or more UKs to P27 for the majority of UK citizens.
There is, for me, a clear requirement to be able to point, in an unambiguous way, on law items, to the country/state in which laws are enacted and to which they apply. UK laws in 1707-1801 cover different areas that 1808-1922 (or 1927), cover different areas than 1922/7 onwards. They were made by parliaments of different names. Countrywide laws in any of those period apply to the country, and that being the case it is useful to have a country item to point to. Antedating the inception date of a country invites the mistake of linking a law created before the existance of that country, with the boundaries of that country, which is erroneous.
iirc, one of the changes I objected to was setting the inception date for what hed been the 1927 onwards UK, to 1707. Obviously this made mincemeat of the inception and dissolution dates of the two preceding UK items. But it also seems as partial as can be. The union of E&W & S produced version 1 of a UK. Why does not the union of this UK with Ireland produce a version 2 UK on exactly the same basis. Why does the loss of most of Ireland sometime later not have the same effect, producing a version 3?
I'm aware of some of the comparisons - with the USA, or France - which have been used to argue against a separation of the UK into a set of sovereign state items having distinct periods. But going back to my point about the lack of articulation of the supposed problem, I don't see that any real analysis of the way in which states/countries are modelled on wikidata has been done. A quick look right now shows the truthy value of inception for Germany as 1949, France as 1958, Russia as 1991. Clearly here the model is, at least to some extent, respecting that fundamental changes to a sovereign state - a new Reich, a new Republic - mark the inception of a new sovereign state. But for the UK, we're being asked to overlook the addition and loss of Ireland, and the changes to the membership of the legislature, as being insignificant; and asked instead to buy the idea that because the term 'United Kingdom' has been applied in each of the three periods, there is only a single continuing sovereign state.
For me, until we have an understanding and articulation of the rule base by which we model the evolution of sovereign states, any change to the UK items status quo is merely arbitrary and capricious, and we should avoid the arbitrary and capricious. And in order to understand and articulate the rule base, work need to be done to analyse our model. Right now all we have is a suggested profound change being driven by one person particular prejudice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: The current set up is arbitrary and is not the original set-up, which used 1707. 1707 is the proper date because 1707 is the date that the United Kingdom first began to exist. Merging it with other "states" (Ireland was not exactly sovereign in 1800...) does not make a new state. The current set up has us being asked to buy that a change in country's official name is somehow the same thing as beginning a new state, or that a change in state's territory is somehow a constitutional difference. The idea that the present UK is different to the early 20th century one is fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the constitutional situation. What you call "the addition and loss of Ireland" is in fact only, for constitutional purposes, "the addition of Ireland". Nothing has happened to the 1801 union, it was not repealed or whatever; the kingdom of Ireland is all still part of the UK as before. It's simply smaller than it was. The loss of Hong Kong did not create a new state, even though the UK's population decreased by as much, if not more, than in 1922. The loss of the Philippines does not create a new United States. Our inception date for Japan is 11 February 660 BCE; Shogunate, Meji period, MacArthur all notwithstanding. It seems to me as though arbitrary and capricious best describes the current situation. It's strange to see the current situation for the UK (a state which has existed for centuries) as anything but aberrant and untenable. Have you ever seen anyone write "the United Kingdom came into being in the late 1920s"? It's absurd to suggest. What possible grounds are there for maintaining the bizarre caprice that is the status quo? Wikidata cannot invent its own definition for when countries came into being, it has to reflect historical reality. GPinkerton (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To remove the capricious and arbitrary use of 1927 as an inception date, return the United Kingdom back to its original inception date, and demote its historical iterations' long names to official names and/or historical periods properties would seem to be the best solution, and the one that applies to all other nations surveyed thus far. It's clearly nonsensical to insist that people who lived in France before de Gaulle and the Vth republic should have to have any other country of citizenship than simply "France" purely because the state's official name changed. Now, including all the French kingdoms from the Roman empire onwards is clearly far more tenuous than, say, listing the modern French state's first foundation in 1789, or listing the UK's inception date at 1707. The fact that both France and the UK have had the same name (barring official nomenclature) between the 18th century and today should be enough to demonstrate that the UK then was the same country as the UK now. Bulgaria did not exist as a state at all for long swathes of the Middle Ages, yet we accept the traditional foundation in 681. The fact that the 1st and 2nd Bulgarian Empires have since risen and fallen, and then the principality, then the kingdom, then the people's republic, then the modern republic seems as immaterial as the enormous flux in Bulgaria's territorial extent over that time, which changed far more radically and more frequently than the UK's has in its 300 years. Let alone the fact that the 18th-century United States was a fraction of the size of the modern state, yet we don't need to link its citizens to a new Wikidata item every a new state joined the union, or a new territory was annexed, or incorporated, or organized, or whatever. Similarly, the fact the UK's official name (or, more precisely, the official name of its monarch and of its parliament) has changed a number of times makes/made no difference to anyone's citizenship or the applicability of any laws. Everyone in this discussion has used this item's name to refer to the state existing long before the 20th century. Where is it stated that the United Kingdom did not exist before 1927, or that a new one started that year? Where does this idea come from? GPinkerton (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of citizenships varies greatly by time and by law (not necessarily linked to the change of a constitution). France's list of political systems in France (Q29837670) many change of republics do have importance. Let's say there is a general concept 'France' and many regimes that have been part of it. The guy born before 1789 was a subject of the King of France, thus cannot be "French" but "subject of the French king". Plus its french citizenship was non sensical (there were no passports at this time, no ID cards, no real border police). That's why Q7742#P27 might appear nonsensical. As well as Q44279#P27. Perhaps the solution is that country of citizenship (P27) might accept only current and recent countries [citizenships/nationalities // meeting timescales of state and of the individual] and perhaps there would be a need of a P that would collect the "regime under which the people lived in" [or something like ethnic group (P172) ... That point can I really understand. The other point removing historical country (Q3024240) is nonsensical for me too (leaving aside the question of correct inceptions dates). Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 05:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bouzinac: The guy born before 1789 was a subject of the King of France, thus cannot be "French" but "subject of the French king". Plus its french citizenship was non sensical (there were no passports at this time, no ID cards, no real border police). I'm sorry this sounds a bit silly. Being a French subject is not different to being a British subject (a status that existed until the late 20th century), and that has nothing to do with whether a country is pre- or post-revolution or whether the UK is the same country as the country called the UK for the past 300 years. It can be argued that applying a modern conception of citizenship can be anachronistic in the past, but to argue that people stopped or started belonging to countries in the way that "citizenship" implies because of mere change in government is stretching it again. Roman citizens remained Roman citizens when the Republic became an Empire, and none of them would have noticed any difference. René Descartes was exactly the same amount of French "citizen" as Victor Hugo, and neither of them lived in the Vth Republic. (The One True France, according to the logic that has the One True UK existing from 1927 only and then completely without historical precedent.) GPinkerton (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The w:United Kingdom did not exist by that name until the w:Acts of Union of Great Britain and Ireland 1801-01-01. And Great Britain didn't exist by that name until the w: Acts of Union of England and Scotland 1707-05-01. Prior to 1603 England and Scotland were separate countries. When Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, King James VI of Scotland became simultaneously King James I of England. From 1603 to 1707 England and Scotland were separate countries but with the same monarch, ignoring the w:Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which ended with Charles I losing his head, leading to the short-lived w:Commonwealth of England, 1649-1660.
I'm no great scholar of UK history, but I believe the following summarizes my understanding and the sources I just checked:
  • From pre-history to 1603, England, Scotland, and Ireland were separate countries; Wales was for centuries many different countries, that were absorbed by England at different times, especially during the w:House of Plantagenet, if I understand correctly.
  • From 1603 to 1707, England, Scotland and Ireland were separate kingoms (or Commonwealths, for a short period), which shared the same ruler (Stuart kings, Lord Protector Cromwell, then William and Mary, then w:Anne, Queen of Great Britain).
  • In 1707 England and Scotland joined to become Great Britain during the reign of w:Anne, Queen of Great Britain.
  • In 1801 Great Britain and Ireland combined to become the United Kingdom, officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  • In 1921 Ireland was partitioned, with most of the island becoming the Republic of Ireland and the official name of the UK being changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I don't know what that says about the issues being discussed here, except that the UK was NOT formed in 1707. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think all you can do is look at each transition and decide whether there is a continuing state, successor state, or newly created state. Changes of name or territory aren't definitive. Ghouston (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This change of the UK in 1927, I can't see is anything more than a change in the way the UK described itself, in its full name. The en:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 seems to have taken effect on 13 May 1927, when a royal proclamation took place. There wasn't any change of government on that date. It seems like a very strange date to choose for the foundation of the UK, and could do with some references to support it. Ghouston (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidMCEddy: I'm sorry but your analysis above leaves much to be desired. The United Kingdom did not exist by that name until the Acts of Union of Great Britain and Ireland 1801-01-01. This is wrong. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is referred to as such in the Acts of Union of 1707, and in numerous subsequent 18th-century laws. To claim it did not exist until 1801 is simply untrue and ignores the country's own name for itself (the United Kingdom) throughout the 18th century. In 1800, Ireland and the United Kingdom made legislation that made Ireland a part of the United Kingdom, and the UK's official name changed to be the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". It changed again in 1927, being renamed to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". At no point between 1800 and today did a new British state get created, and at no point since 1707 has the UK not had the name "UK". Surely if, as you claim "the UK was NOT formed in 1707", you should be able to find reliable sources saying as much. If so significant a country as the UK had sprung into existence between WWI and WWII, surely some some evidence can be found for this. I've seen not a shred so far. If someone told me that USA's inception was not in the 18th century, but, say, in 1960 when the Union with Hawaii was effected, they'd need to produce a pretty good source to make this change from the common sense, historically accepted date of American independence. So should it be with the UK. Where is the evidence? GPinkerton (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Properties for Price One Penny (Q106923678)

Hi! I'm new to Wikidata. I would like to import data from my database Price One Penny (Q106923678) to Wikidata. I've requested 5 properties in Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic and 4 are now ready to be created. However, I do not have the rights to do so.

Should I contact Wikidata:Property creators individually to ask to create them? What's the protocol? Thank you very much! Marianika (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The property creation process is slow and back-logged, I'm afraid. Be patient. Just curious, why are these requested under generic rather than under authority control? Bovlb (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: I modelled my proposals on those for Wikidata:Property_proposal/WeChangEd_ID and Wikidata:Property_proposal/British_Book_Trade_Index, both of which were made under Generic. Only the first said "Originellement proposée sur Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control" and there was a lot of debate beneath it, so I had assumed this meant it had not been requested at the right place. Marianika (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We could probably explain the sections a bit more clearly. Authority Control should (as I understand it) cover any external identifier. Bovlb (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Thanks! Marianika (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modelling NUTS regions

I noticed Wikidata's coverage of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (Q193083) codes were lacking in a few regards. While trying to improve the situation, I ran into some challenging modelling decisions that I'm not sure how to resolve. I left a comment at the discussion page of NUTS code (P605) but I don't think many users monitor that page.

1. Modified codes Some NUTS regions have been recoded. For example, in the 2016 version of NUTS, Upper Normandy (Q16961) was recoded from FR23 to FRD2. As you can see, I modelled this using the qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582). I also used stated in (P248) in the references to link the modification to a specific NUTS version. Question: Is there a better way to relate the NUTS region codes to the various versions of the NUTS standard?

2. Date specificity Related to 1, we can do better than state just the year when a given code starts/ends to be valid, and specify the date instead. But I'm not sure which date to use as there are three dates associated with each NUTS version: a) entry into force which "represents the date when the regulation has legal existence" (source), b) date of applicability which means that "the regulation is also applicable; it can be fully invoked by its addressees and is fully enforceable", and c) the date at which it "shall apply, with regard to the transmission of data to the Commission" (source) which is usually at January 1 the year efter it entered into force. Question: Which date should we use as a qualifier for start time (P580) and end time (P582)?

3. Multiple current codes for single regions NUTS consists of three (four if you count countries) levels, going from large regions to small ones. Some regions have codes on multiple levels. For example, Estonia (Q191) is a NUTS 0 region, a NUTS 1 region, and a NUTS 2 region at the same time. I began modelling this with applies to part (P518) as a qualifier, with one of the NUTS levels as values, as can be seen in the Estonia item. Question: Is there a better way to express which level the code refers to? Popperipopp (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mixup in Super Eco 2700-class container ship (Q107002552)

Not sure how to solve this, as I'm not very active here, leaving it to more experienced Wikidata editors: English Wikipedia's article en:X-Press Pearl is about an individual ship of the Super Eco 2700 class which recently caught fire. German Wikipedia on the other hand, where there's a general tendency to prefer articles about classes of freighter ships instead of individual ships, has de:Super Eco 2700 about the class of more than 10 ships, and the X-Press Pearl incident is just mentioned in a "Zwischenfälle" (incidents) paragraph. Super Eco 2700-class container ship (Q107002552) is now a mixup of the two, with Super Eco 2700 (the type) as the label, but X-Press Pearl as an alias (which is clearly wrong, as that's not the name of the class as a whole), and also an IMO number for the individual ship. I think there should be two items, one for the class and one for the X-Press Pearl. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone merged two items about different things. I undid that. @Gestumblindi: --- Jura 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Thank you! I added "vessel class" to X-Press Pearl (Q107002557): container ship built in 2021 though it tells me now that there are "some potential issues" with that statement, not sure how serious these issues are, looks fine to me... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure either. I made a few more for ships of the class.
@Gestumblindi: --- Jura 08:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we already had all but X-Press Pearl (Q107002557) --- Jura 12:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the item about the class to a subclass of ship class (Q559026). I've used this query to look at the types of items that link to "ship class" and ship type (Q2235308). I've also linked to Super Eco Ship (Q11313672), which is probably an unrelated concept ship (class)? --Azertus (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on some articles

Someone removed twice the link to be-tarask article from Q1215892. I guess vandals will do it one more time. Can someone protect it? Moreover, this is not the only article removed. Is there any filter to see changes of be-tarask links only? Dymitr (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly, but we do have a filter for "new user removing sitelink". Try this version of Recent Changes and search for "be_x_oldwiki". Bovlb (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Added this page to my bookmarks. --Dymitr (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dymitr You can also use https://wdvd.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=be-x-old&limit=50&sitelinks=on (WD:WDVD, limited to be-tarask sitelink removals). Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Data is free to use; are images also free to use ?

Hello.

I want to download painting artworks from wikidata. I am able to write a python script which requests for public domain paintings with images. I'm also able to get the image URL.

Basically, I get a JSON full of items like


{ 

       "painting": {
           "type": "uri",
           "value": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q20016794"
       },
       "picture": {
           "type": "uri",
           "value": "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/Pieter%20de%20Hooch%20-%20Skittle%20Players%20in%20a%20Garden%20-%20Waddesdon%20Manor.jpg"
       }

}

First question : is the image itself an entity with properties ? How to programmatically retrieve the image license ?


The introduction of wikidata states that

Wikidata also provides support to many other sites and services beyond just Wikimedia projects! The content of Wikidata is available under a free license, exported using standard formats, and can be interlinked to other open data sets on the linked data web.

Second question Since the images (example) are from wikimedia (not wikidata), is there a garanteed that the images linked from wikidata are free ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurent.Claessens (talk • contribs) at 08:26, June 2, 2021‎ (UTC).

The images are not part of Wikidata, so are not covered by the Wikidata licence. They are links to Wikimedia Commons. If Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia doesn't answer your questions, you could try asking at Commons:Village_pump. Bovlb (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on legislature / elections

Hi all,

A "legislative term" is, as I see it, restricted to national legislative chambers. However, in certain countries, there are assemblies that are elected, but are not chambers. For instance, Guardian Council or Assembly of Experts for Leadership in Iran.

My main objective is to be able to provide election information for a politician that has been elected several times in a row.

My understanding is that for a chamber, one would have filled "part of" and used the "legislative term" items, such as in Barack Obama.

I have created 1982 Assembly of Experts Election, but I am not very happy with it, as an election in not a term, it is more a point in time.

How would you recommend to do it for, say, a Member of the Guardian Council ?

Thanks

Zejames (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, you are talking about parliamentary term (P2937). I think it would make sense to broaden it to terms of any governmental assembly. I don't understand the subtleties you are referring to of Iranian government but we often have corresponding election and term items (e.g. 2004 United States House of Representatives elections (Q2539374) and 109th United States Congress (Q168778)) so you could just make another item to represent the term separate from the election for the term. BrokenSegue (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with wikidata info

Not sure if this request should be here or in a different place, so sorry in advance if I'm in the wrong place. There is something strange with the wikidata of the article "Ramala" in the Spanish Wikipedia, as it shows the country as "Ottoman Empire" instead of "State of Palestine". I've checked the same article in many other wikis (English, French, German, Italian, etc.) and none of them have such problem. Indeed, to my inexperienced eyes, nothing seems to be wrong in the wikidata of "Ramallah" itself. This is driving some editors mad, and I'm sure you'll find it quite easy to solve, so I'm here to ask for help. Thanks a lot in advance.--11koyo11 (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@11koyo11: Fixed Eurohunter (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: no you didn't. These edits are incorrect. The deprecated rank is only for things that turned out to be incorrect, not for statements that used to be valid, but are not valid anymore. Please have a look at Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank. Multichill (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So many people get this wrong that I wonder if we should rename deprecated in the UI to something more evocative. Like "wrong". BrokenSegue (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: I thought it is to manage display in Wikipedia infoboxes etc. because when something is incorect then should be simply removed. Eurohunter (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read Help:Ranking then. It's one of the key differences to Wikipedia. --- Jura 07:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: It's not incorrect Ramallah was located in the Ottoman Empire. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Yes. It was there but infobox lists actuall contry than all historic changes. Eurohunter (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That doesn't change the fact that the statement is correct. We have preferred rank to mark the current statement so that a infobox that wants the best rank gets the current one. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Items by numer of labels or descriptions

How I can find items with greatest number of labels or descriptions for each instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279)? Eurohunter (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurohunter, I'm by no means an expert (still learning), but I think this does what you want: 
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?cnt WHERE {
  {
    SELECT ?item (COUNT(?label) AS ?cnt) WHERE {
      ?item (wdt:P31/(wdt:P279*)) wd:Q810519;
        rdfs:label ?label.
    }
    GROUP BY ?item
  }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
ORDER BY DESC (?cnt)
Try it!
. This should count the labels.
This is the same query, modified to count descriptions. 
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?cnt WHERE {
  {
    SELECT ?item (COUNT(?desc) AS ?cnt) WHERE {
      ?item (wdt:P31/(wdt:P279*)) wd:Q810519;
        schema:description ?desc.
    }
    GROUP BY ?item
  }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
ORDER BY DESC (?cnt)
Try it!
.
I've noticed that barge (Q16518) reaches ship type (Q2235308) through two paths, so in this last query, it shows as having double the amount of descriptions it actually has (40 instead of 20). I don't know if that can be fixed using a different property path or if this means there's a better (correct) way to do this. Any experts can chime in? --Azertus (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Azertus: It works. Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search results

Why I can find "live result" of phrase like "Category:Songs written by Basshunter" in the left sidebar search but when I press enter there is no results in index.php?search? What I'm missing? What is this search for? Eurohunter (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "Category:" prefix takes precedence and only searches through Wikidata internal categories. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Matěj Suchánek: Was it reported to fix already? Eurohunter (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, it's better to ask / report it anyway. It should be considered, though, that somebody might actually expect the kind of results you are getting. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Matěj Suchánek: Thanks. Reported. Eurohunter (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No results from MWAPI + RDF query?

https://w.wiki/3S7D returns no results, but https://w.wiki/3S7F, just the MWAPI query without the triple (?item wdt:P31 wd:Q1549591) does. I expected wd:Q1461 to show up in both, but no results ever appear whenever I include a triple. What gives? Nivekuil (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is statement rank: Manila (Q1461) has a Preferred Rank P31 - highly urbanized city (Q29946056) - and so looking for wdt:P31 wd:Q1549591 fails ... Q1549591 in Q1461 is not truthy. p:P31/ps:P31 works: https://w.wiki/3S7Z . Wikidata:Request a query is a better place for this sort of question.
@Seav: might like to come here to explain why exactly Manila now has a preferred rank for one of several equally valid P31 values ... the diff seems indistinguishable from vandalism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help :) Nivekuil (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The convention for local government units in the Philippines is to use the legal/official class for the entity (ex.: province of the Philippines (Q24746), highly urbanized city (Q29946056), component city (Q106078286), municipality of the Philippines (Q24764), barangay (Q61878)) as either the single normal-rank value for the instance of (P31) statement, or as the preferred value if there are other valid values. This is what is expected by the Template:PH wikidata (Q19921792) template in the English Wikipedia. I guess the template can be updated to ignore unexpected P31 values but at the cost of added complexity and computation. —seav (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Seav: It is really bad practice - the very worst practice: basically vandalism - to have a single template on some language wiki somewhere peversely drive differential ranking of equally valid P31 values on a wikidata item. That template is not the only consumer of wikidata, and other consumers - in this case Nivekuil - have a valid expectation that equally valid values will not be downranked and hence invisible to a wdt: query. Please add "complexity and computation", or, in other words, please fix your badly designed and broken template, so that it does not require wikidata to be degraded for other users, and fix P31 statements that have been demoted to make the broken template work. smh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting topic : should wikiarticles be more important/ than wikidata or the reverse ? Should Wikidata outweigh wikiarticles ? Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 11:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should wikidata items be frigged to make badly designed language wiki templates work? Just let me think for a minute. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, no. But what happens if langX wiki says "this is true" and langY says "that is true". Which statement would be set as preferred ? Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 12:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absent other corroborating sources, neither would be preferred. Both would be referenced to their source. The normal caveat emptor would apply. We see this 19 times a day with DoBs and DoDs. Where there is compelling evidence that one is wrong, then we would demote the wrong value. Where there are two values, one more precise than the other, we might well promote the more precise. What we do not do, where a thing is an equally valid instance of X, Y and Z, is set X as preferred merely because someone somewhere has a special interest in the class X and no interest in classes Y & Z. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q466784 (American Soccer League)

According to the descriptions, Q466784 (American Soccer League) is a redirect page. This is indeed the case in enwiki and cawiki, but not in the others (de, fr, nl, it, pt).

It seems to me that this item should be split. If someone can give me a tool to do that in a few minutes, I'll do it, otherwise I hope someone else picks this up.

Sincerely — bertux 12:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a redirect, but a disambiguation page in en:. The item is for a league, whose correct en: link is en:American Soccer League (1921–1933), but the pages on de:, fr: etc. are conflations discussing all the ASLs. The problem is that the pages on other wikis are so detailed as to become conflations (Wikimedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471)): fr: has a page for the 1921 league, but not the other ones, for example. Circeus (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question for some people

(Not for me though... :) How can we link İzzet Akay (Q20724828) with Category:Films by İzzet Akay (Q32723579)? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One way would be to add a claim of significant person (P3342) on the Category item. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
category combines topics (P971)?
category combines topics (P971) seems more appropriate than P3342. See for instance Category:Films directed by Frank Hall Crane (Q8453938), Category:Films directed by Jože Gale (Q26261646), or Category:Films produced by Steven Spielberg (Q8457512) (creation of additional items might be needed to accurately describe the relationships). -Animalparty (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both. This person is not "director" or "producer" but "cameraman". Please give a helping hand if you can, directly at the concerned items; I am not the type of person who learns quickly how to fish. --E4024 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for deletion?

Q25085714, and its main subject, Q28017217, both seem to be spurious 'made up' items for the purpose of personal amusement and/or trivia collecting. On English Wikipedia, both "List of" and category have been deleted, and it seems to me there is no evidence "presidential school" is anything real, discrete, and notable, even by the minutest of standards Wikidata employs. Is deletion warranted for either of these items? -Animalparty (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nominate it for deletion BrokenSegue (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any idea about the school, but empty category items can not be notable, as categories do not exist outside the Wikiverse. I deleted the category.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with the above

Ping Ymblanter, but I think Sude Nisa Bodur (Q107036039) should be deleted even before empty cats, because the item is only invented to make a link to an unnotable person. Thx. --E4024 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already nominated this item for deletion. Bringing your complaint here is just canvassing. There are hundreds of requests for deletion. We sensibly keep them on their own page, rather than this one. Please respect that convention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't exaggerate. Why would I canvass? Who is she? What importance does she (or the item) have? I was just trying to attract attention to the same issue you said: "There are hundreds of requests for deletion." The reason of that backlog is the fact that such obvious cases are still there, only because a bot says "there is a link". And the winner issss... The link is added by an LTA to keep "his" own item a few days more... It is not even about this very item but about the LTA whose images are being deleted from Commons everyday and whose item is still here. (BTW I did not even comment in that person's own item for deletion, as it is / as the two are so clear cases. Neither he nor his sister are of no interest to me nor to Wikidata.) Best. --E4024 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Why would I canvass?", you say, as you canvass some more: "I was just trying to attract attention". smh --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The DR is withdrawn. E4024 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am interested in Classifications. There is a classification International (Nice) Classification of Goods and Services (Q193988) also known as nice classifikation and in this classification there are the most goods and services who exist included. What is the copyright status of this classification and do you think that is classification is helpful for Wikidata. I thought that it is in the public domain because it is a treaty but there I am not sure. From my point of view if for the objects mentioned in the classification items would exist then there is a wide coverage in Wikidata for that topic.--Hogü-456 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/en/faq.html:
Do I need to pay WIPO if I want to use a database version of the Nice Classification in my web service?
No, you can download the NCL files, but you have to acknowledge WIPO's copyright if you plan to use the NCL on your site. For more details, please refer to the conditions of use in the Download and IT Support area.
--SCIdude (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need property "display-authors"?

Wikiversity:Anti-rivalry, contagious diseases and news displays an error message for Q107063587, saying "Explicit use of et al. in: |author4= (help)" with "(help)" linking to w:Help:CS1 errors, which seems to say that if I want "et al." with a list of authors, I should use "|display-authors=", if I understand correctly.

In fact, Q107063587 has 44 authors. The URL suggested using only the first 3 followed by "et al.". That's what I entered into Wikidata. However, Wikiversity (and apparently also Wikipedia) don't like that. I'm guessing that this error would disappear if a property named "display-authors" were added and assigned a value "3" in Q107063587.

However, I don't know what to do with this, so I thought I'd ask here.

Ideally, I think someone might write code so when "et al." was entered for author, contributor, editor, interviewer, subject, or translator, AND the Wikidata item had at least that many items for that property, Wikidata would automatically add the appropriate "display-authors:", "display-contributors:", "display-editors:", "display-interviewers:", "display-subjects:", or "display-translators:" in what it sent to other projects. Then I wouldn't have to do anything different from what I did, which seemed to me like the sensible, intuitive thing to do in that situation. I refuse to enter all 44 authors into Q107063587 ;-)

Comments? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikidata is structured data, we will eventually link Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers — Eight U.S. Locations (Q107063587) to items about each author. Those links will allow users of our data to see all of the published works by a specific author. If the author doesn't have an existing item, it can be recorded as text, which will help bots or users to match it to the author item when it is created.
For that reason, Wikidata will be collecting all the author names for a publication. However, if you don't wish to record all 40, enter those that you can manage. A bot or another user will come along eventually and add more authors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidMCEddy: I have managed to fix your error. Set author 4 as a named individual on Wikidata then set display-authors=3 on the cite template at Wikivetsity. That will leave the correct information here but show "et al" at Wikivetsity. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see it. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on an edit

Hi, Newbie here, I added data about a subject "Oduwacoin" two weeks ago but it seems it's yet to be reviewed, I'm not sure how things work here but will I call in an admin to review it or it will get reviewed automatically, or is it reviewed already?Lumared (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lumared: there is no "review" process here but you can request review as you just have. I took a pass at cleaning it up for you. One way to learn how to contribute is to look at a similar example and copy how it was done there. So for example look at bitcoin (Q131723) and make Oduwacoin (Q106914879) look like it. BrokenSegue (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Construction period for buildings

Fairly new to Wikidata, so apologies if this is obvious. I've been expanding items relating to listed buildings in Cheshire, UK, including adding the date they were built (property "inception"). Sometimes, though, a building takes several years to build (and the start and end of the contruction period are known). How would I reflect that in the item? An example would be Q26656494, which I've listed as inception=1900, when its National Heritage List for England entry states that construction was 1898–1900. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a followup, if I may. How would I record an approximate date (e.g. NHLE often says "c.1900")? Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: there's a few options. you can make a "significant event" so e.g. significant event (P793) start of construction (Q27136782) or groundbreaking ceremony (Q1068633) or end of manufacturing (Q59913255) and then attach a point in time (P585) qualifier to that event statement. you can see this was done on United States Capitol (Q54109). For uncertain dates wikidata supports dates with different level of precision so you can say "1900" the century or decade or year. You can also indicate that the date is only "circa" by using a qualifier on the date e.g. sourcing circumstances (P1480) circa (Q5727902). BrokenSegue (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basilica and Expiatory Church of the Holy Family (Q48435) might give some inspiration. Multichill (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – vey helpful, and useful to have some exemplars. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: For more on approximate- (and other vague-) dates, see Wikidata:Extended Date-Time Format Specification, its talk page, and the linked ticket Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

said to be the same as (P460)

How said to be the same as (Q66209246) is inverse label item (P7087) for said to be the same as (P460)? said to be the same as (Q66209246) isn't even a property. So where is inverse label item of (Q66205187) for said to be the same as (Q66209246)? Eurohunter (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse doesn't mean opposite in this context. It's more clear if you think of a property like "parent". Say you link two items with the property parent: Simba - has a parent - Mustafa. It should now be possible to say something about Mustafa, i.e. in the other direction, without necessarily adding a second statement. The inverse of parent would be child: Mustafa - has a child - Simba.
So since "same as" is a symmetrical property: A - same as - B, the statement when viewed from the other direction, B - same as - A, still should be called "same as". Hope this helped?
By doing it this way we don't have to duplicate every statement from the other direction, but it can still be displayed to the user as if such a property/statement existed. Anyone else reading, if I made any mistakes in the above, please correct me! --Azertus (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Azertus: Okey but I think its still misslleading in current form and it need better solution. Do you have any idea? Eurohunter (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The English labels seem to make sense. Maybe the pl translation you are viewing is somewhat off?
The use of said to be the same as (Q66209246) is somewhat limited as P460 is generally symmetric.
Not sure if inverse label item of (Q66205187) actually works, but that's another problem. --- Jura 16:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check if redirect

Is there a template to check if an object is a redirect? Queryzo (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could add this tool to your own common.js https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:You/common.js via this code importScript('User:Matěj Suchánek/checkSitelinks.js'); : it will add a button and tell you whether the wikiarticle contains a redirect.--Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 11:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #471

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • You can now add a title to a query visualisation by adding #title:YourTitle to your SPARQL code (phab:T225883, example query with a title)
    • Added a new constraints type to indicate that a certain Property should only be used on Lexemes of a certain language (phab:T200689)
    • Working on not checking the format constraints via SPARQL to take that load off the SPARQL endpoint and make it technically better (phab:T176312)
    • Working on making the API-Sandbox not suggest edits to real Items (phab:T219215)


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.

New section

In the case: provocation defence (Q3566104), I have merged all of provocation (Q257931) except "All entered languages" of the Q257931 Because i can't add and edit at Q3566104 more languages, how can i add, Thanks --Bmt3s (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to merge them? If so, see Help:Merge. We normally merge to the older item not the newer item. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that provocation defence (Q3566104) was originally a legal term (with English label "provocation defence") and distinct from the general term. Perhaps a merge is incorrect here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMA Number, broad sense

Hello, I need help on IMA Number, broad sense (P484). Now we have this format constrain: IMA(19[6-9]\d|20\d{2})(-\d{3}[a-z]?|-[A-Z]|-[a-z]{3}| s\.p\.). I would like it to be true for these instances: IMA1984-057, IMA2014-057, IMA1984 s.p., IMA2014 s.p., IMA1984-L, IMA2014-L, IMA84-L and IMA14-L. 'L' can be any letter. Thx n Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted: User script to convert "author name string" to "author"

Suppose I have in my clipboard the QID of an author; and I am viewing the item about one of their works, where their name is recorded using only author name string (P2093).

I would like a user script that will give me a button next to the P2093 value. When clicked, that button would open a dialogue where I would paste the author's QID.

The script would then generate an author (P50) statement, using the series ordinal (P1545) & affiliation string (P6424) qualifiers (including any multiple values), reference(s) and the string value (for subject named as (P1810)), if any, from the statement.

It should reject the change if a corresponding P50 already exists.

It might also remove the P2093 statement.

An example of such changes is in this diff.

Does such a script exists or, if not, could someone kindly make one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I assume you know, Author Disambiguator does this on a larger scale as an external service. Doing it with a gadget would certainly be useful though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed constraint for sex or gender

See discussion. --Epìdosis 19:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opens only at certain dates/events

How to tell that tramway station 京橋停留場(Q28685195) opens only on certain events/days ? Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 19:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6373#P3025 --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References for values openly supplied by the individual themselves

I am involved in a consultative process to learn how Indigenous artists feel about having information about them and their artistic practice stated in Wikidata. As part of this process we are guiding participants as they add statements on their own person item and we collect feedback from them over the course of the process. The response is so far positive and the process is very instructive, but we face certain challenges with references. Sometimes, we can find external references in support for their statements. Other times, these external references don't exist (either because Indigenous artists don't benefit from the same media coverage as mainstream artists, because the information is part of the oral knowledge within an Indigenous community, or because the information isn't documented anywhere, but the artist wishes to make this information available in Wikidata). Among other things, we lack often external references for gender, year of birth and ethnic group, but the artist are stating these values themselves. Is there a property that could be used to source a statement to the individual themselves? Fjjulien (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=1437893089"