Wikidata:Project chat
Shortcut: WD:PC
Wikidata project chat Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered. Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata. IRC channel: #wikidataconnect |
- Afrikaans
- العربية
- беларуская
- беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- български
- Banjar
- বাংলা
- brezhoneg
- bosanski
- català
- کوردی
- čeština
- словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ
- dansk
- Deutsch
- Zazaki
- dolnoserbski
- Ελληνικά
- English
- Esperanto
- español
- eesti
- فارسی
- suomi
- føroyskt
- français
- Nordfriisk
- galego
- Alemannisch
- ગુજરાતી
- עברית
- हिन्दी
- hrvatski
- hornjoserbsce
- magyar
- հայերեն
- Bahasa Indonesia
- interlingua
- Ilokano
- íslenska
- italiano
- 日本語
- Jawa
- ქართული
- қазақша
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- 한국어
- kurdî
- Latina
- lietuvių
- latviešu
- Malagasy
- Minangkabau
- македонски
- മലയാളം
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- مازِرونی
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- Nederlands
- norsk bokmål
- norsk nynorsk
- occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- polski
- پنجابی
- português
- Runa Simi
- română
- русский
- Scots
- davvisámegiella
- srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- slovenčina
- slovenščina
- shqip
- српски / srpski
- svenska
- ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ
- ślůnski
- தமிழ்
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- Tagalog
- Türkçe
- українська
- اردو
- oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Tiếng Việt
- Yorùbá
- 中文
![]() |
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2025/06. |
Suitable instance for pages like w:Icarius
Frequently I come across pages like w:Icarius at enwiki with two or more people described in detail. These seem to be fairly frequent to describe people in the field.
Some of these pages are linked to disambiguation items, others from list items, some as groups of people. This one is linked from a given name item.
As the content goes beyond a mere disambiguation page, what should we use to link them? List items might be the most suitable.
(Not important for this question, but, obviously, each entry in such lists should get an item of its own. Here Q608800 and Q1658054, maybe Q34041)
--- Jura 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we have an adequate item for those pages yet. It should probably be something like 'Wikimedia items grouping page'. And it should follow the Bonnie and Clyde principles. --Melderick (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at that page, personally I think it could be seen as a page that groups information from various Wikidata items. Couldn't that be said about most lists?
--- Jura 06:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)- There is a continuum between pure disambigs, lists, dislocated Wiktionary content and etymology in Wikipedia. Icarius could probably be treated as ´Lemek in the Bible where the P40 and P22-statements should be removed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think items such as duo (Q15618652) are the right classes because the group itself only exists in Wikimedia (well as far as the Bible is saying about them ofc). I would expect a Wikipedia page about an instance of duo (Q15618652) to talk about what the group did together, what they share. I agree with Jura that Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) is probably the closest existing class. --Melderick (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is a continuum between pure disambigs, lists, dislocated Wiktionary content and etymology in Wikipedia. Icarius could probably be treated as ´Lemek in the Bible where the P40 and P22-statements should be removed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at that page, personally I think it could be seen as a page that groups information from various Wikidata items. Couldn't that be said about most lists?
That page for w:Icarius is a disambiguation page. There is much more to be said about either Icarius but this page just stubs them both up and bundles them together. So this is not a list of two, but just a regular Wikipedia disambiguation page, which has part Icarius of Sparta (Q1658054) and has part Icarius of Athens (Q608800) (so you can only link this item to other language WIkipedia disambiguation pages for Icarius). Jane023 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't see it as a disambiguation page and I don't think that much content is allowed on enwiki disambiguation pages.
--- Jura 17:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)- Wikipedia doesn't see it as a quality article either. It is very stubby and discusses two concepts. It would be incorrect to choose the first one to link to the Q number so I think it should just be labelled a disambig. If it were me, I might improve the article about the first one, and then you could link it to the first item, but in my opinion they both are too shoddy to warrant an interwikilink right now. Jane023 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a major concern for many many articles about Greek mythology both in en.wiki and it.wiki (the template on en.wiki is en:Template:Greek myth index: 203 results on Petscan; unfortunately there isn't anything similar on it.wiki): I agree about using instance of (P31)Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) and I want to report that in the past I saw instance of (P31)Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) was used very often for items like these (118 results on Petscan for en.wiki, 50 results on Petscan for it.wiki, 130 results merging them). Finally, in my opinion the best solution is working in the native Wikipedias splitting these artificial lists into stubs and turning them into regular disambiguation pages. --Epìdosis 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes of course. We haven't yet attracted anyone willing to go fix these articles. Maybe they are all playing Pokemon Go. It doesn't matter as long as you believe it will happen one day. I have been around long enough to see improvements happen in various areas and I have no reason to believe it won't happen in this corner of the Wikiverse. Meanwhile, all of Greek mythology can be modelled to your heart's content here on Wikidata because we have tons of items about artworks that can link to them. Maybe once that is done it may interest people to write about them. Jane023 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Jane023: I agree and I can confirm that slow but significant improvements, here and on it.wiki about ancient Greece. In the meaning time we have to uniformate instance of (P31) for all this items: is it OK for instance of (P31)Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)? --Epìdosis 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I don't see the difference really. When I think of a list I think of 10 items or more and less than that I think it is more of a disambiguation page, but the concept is the same: it's a page that cannot be linked to a specific item and will probably always exist in some form or another. Jane023 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- And what do you (@Melderick, Jura1, Innocent bystander:) think about instance of (P31)Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)? --Epìdosis 13:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, any list is probably "a group of something" so I guess both ways works. That said could probably also be said the other way around. The only problem here is maybe that it is maybe not so easy to semanticly define a "list of persons in Greece mythology with the name Icarius", since these kinds of persons can have different names in different languages. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Taking into account how such a page could evolve in the future, I agree with Jane023 that it is more likely to become a disambiguation page than a list. Somehow a Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) is supposed to have a topic (is a list of (P360) <topic item>) : not possible here. So I changed my mind and my vote goes to instance of (P31)Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) if we have to choose between those 2. --Melderick (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Melderick: OK, I understand your opinion and I personally hope these items will become "normal" disambiguation pages. However, in the meaning time wouldn't it be useful to distinguish in some way these items from "normal" disambiguation pages? For example, we may use instance of (P31)Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) + from narrative universe (P1080)Greek mythology (Q34726). --Epìdosis 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis: It's easy to distinguish them : they will have links to and from the separate items, while "normal" disambiguation items don't. --Melderick (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) is always a non-content-page with links to other pages with content. The only information in such pages, is to separate the different topics. I would therefor
Oppose calling this kind of page a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) or a subclass thereof. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't think it's a good idea to handle content pages at wikis like disambiguation pages just because we think that they might eventually become a disambiguation page (or be replaced by one) or our editorial opinion tells us they should be doing it differently. While it might look like a quick fix to change w:Icarius into a disambiguation page, it's by far not the only such page and some of these include 10+ characters. If we manage to identify these and create missing items, maybe we make it easier for Wikipedia to adopt a more Wikidata-like structure.
--- Jura 13:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Jura1, Innocent bystander: Ok. So let's make a new class for these items. I think we all agree that what is important is the need to create one item for each topic. The class of the item having all the wikilinks is a minor issue. --Melderick (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then as a subclass of a list or "group of persons". As I said, this is not a subclass of a disambig, since it has "content". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it can be a subclass of list either (no is a list of (P360) <topic>). Maybe a sister-class to disambig and list ? I don't know that part of the class-hierarchy. --Melderick (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not fully understand why we cannot use "instance of:group of persons"? I recently created a "group of settlements"-item. (See the discussion in this page now.) The articles affected by this groups two or more villages together and present them in one Wikipedia article. This is very Wikimedia-centric, since nobody else group these villages together. They normally are located close to each other and have names that relates them to each other (Söderby East and Söderby Northwest for example.) in other cases, the connection is even less obvious. Icarius 1 and 2 are maybe not a typical Bonnie and Clyde-couple, but they are nevertheless grouped together by at least one user on Wikipedia. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well any notions of group of persons is used only when all those persons met, made a group and did things together. See instances of group of mythical characters (Q20830276) or duo (Q10648343). --Melderick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- But what prevents us from creating a "group of persons who never met"-item and classify Icarius as such? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well any notions of group of persons is used only when all those persons met, made a group and did things together. See instances of group of mythical characters (Q20830276) or duo (Q10648343). --Melderick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not fully understand why we cannot use "instance of:group of persons"? I recently created a "group of settlements"-item. (See the discussion in this page now.) The articles affected by this groups two or more villages together and present them in one Wikipedia article. This is very Wikimedia-centric, since nobody else group these villages together. They normally are located close to each other and have names that relates them to each other (Söderby East and Söderby Northwest for example.) in other cases, the connection is even less obvious. Icarius 1 and 2 are maybe not a typical Bonnie and Clyde-couple, but they are nevertheless grouped together by at least one user on Wikipedia. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it can be a subclass of list either (no is a list of (P360) <topic>). Maybe a sister-class to disambig and list ? I don't know that part of the class-hierarchy. --Melderick (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then as a subclass of a list or "group of persons". As I said, this is not a subclass of a disambig, since it has "content". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, let's have a look at Meliboea (Q1919352) : in polish, it's clearly a disambig page with a few links. But in finnish, it's the same grouping as for Icarius. So are we supposed to have a different item for finnish (and lose the wikilink) ? Personnaly I don't think so. The english version is also interesting. It seems the non-content-page policy for disambig is way too strict especially with so many wikipedia. In the case of mythological characters, there is often not too much to say about many of them, not enough to make them notables enough to have their own page on many wikipedia. But on other wikipedia, with a different notability policy, they get a few lines page. What do you think of instance of Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) ? --Melderick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now, you are mixing up two concepts! Sharing Interwiki is one of the consequences of sharing item here at Wikidata, but that is not the only way to have Interwiki! sv:Arom is a disambig-page on svwiki. That article is alone in its item, but by the help of a template, it still has interwiki. Old style interwiki ([[xy:Whatever]]) still works and can be used.
- "Set index" is of course an option. I am not so very well-informed about how it is used. It looks like a disambig-list-hybrid to me. And I guess our page maybe could be described as such. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, that it looks like set index page (or topic disambig, how I'd call it). --Infovarius (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't think it's a good idea to handle content pages at wikis like disambiguation pages just because we think that they might eventually become a disambiguation page (or be replaced by one) or our editorial opinion tells us they should be doing it differently. While it might look like a quick fix to change w:Icarius into a disambiguation page, it's by far not the only such page and some of these include 10+ characters. If we manage to identify these and create missing items, maybe we make it easier for Wikipedia to adopt a more Wikidata-like structure.
- In my opinion Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) is always a non-content-page with links to other pages with content. The only information in such pages, is to separate the different topics. I would therefor
- @Epìdosis: It's easy to distinguish them : they will have links to and from the separate items, while "normal" disambiguation items don't. --Melderick (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Melderick: OK, I understand your opinion and I personally hope these items will become "normal" disambiguation pages. However, in the meaning time wouldn't it be useful to distinguish in some way these items from "normal" disambiguation pages? For example, we may use instance of (P31)Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) + from narrative universe (P1080)Greek mythology (Q34726). --Epìdosis 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Taking into account how such a page could evolve in the future, I agree with Jane023 that it is more likely to become a disambiguation page than a list. Somehow a Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) is supposed to have a topic (is a list of (P360) <topic item>) : not possible here. So I changed my mind and my vote goes to instance of (P31)Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) if we have to choose between those 2. --Melderick (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, any list is probably "a group of something" so I guess both ways works. That said could probably also be said the other way around. The only problem here is maybe that it is maybe not so easy to semanticly define a "list of persons in Greece mythology with the name Icarius", since these kinds of persons can have different names in different languages. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- And what do you (@Melderick, Jura1, Innocent bystander:) think about instance of (P31)Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)? --Epìdosis 13:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I don't see the difference really. When I think of a list I think of 10 items or more and less than that I think it is more of a disambiguation page, but the concept is the same: it's a page that cannot be linked to a specific item and will probably always exist in some form or another. Jane023 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Jane023: I agree and I can confirm that slow but significant improvements, here and on it.wiki about ancient Greece. In the meaning time we have to uniformate instance of (P31) for all this items: is it OK for instance of (P31)Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)? --Epìdosis 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes of course. We haven't yet attracted anyone willing to go fix these articles. Maybe they are all playing Pokemon Go. It doesn't matter as long as you believe it will happen one day. I have been around long enough to see improvements happen in various areas and I have no reason to believe it won't happen in this corner of the Wikiverse. Meanwhile, all of Greek mythology can be modelled to your heart's content here on Wikidata because we have tons of items about artworks that can link to them. Maybe once that is done it may interest people to write about them. Jane023 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a major concern for many many articles about Greek mythology both in en.wiki and it.wiki (the template on en.wiki is en:Template:Greek myth index: 203 results on Petscan; unfortunately there isn't anything similar on it.wiki): I agree about using instance of (P31)Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) and I want to report that in the past I saw instance of (P31)Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) was used very often for items like these (118 results on Petscan for en.wiki, 50 results on Petscan for it.wiki, 130 results merging them). Finally, in my opinion the best solution is working in the native Wikipedias splitting these artificial lists into stubs and turning them into regular disambiguation pages. --Epìdosis 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't see it as a quality article either. It is very stubby and discusses two concepts. It would be incorrect to choose the first one to link to the Q number so I think it should just be labelled a disambig. If it were me, I might improve the article about the first one, and then you could link it to the first item, but in my opinion they both are too shoddy to warrant an interwikilink right now. Jane023 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Group versus class : a class is a set of instances who shares some property. For example we could define a class "person named Barrack", and "Barrack Obama" would be an instance of it. Not that we absolutely have to put an instance of (P31) statement in the Obama's item, but conceptually it would be. A group of person is more like a social groups who are linked to each over socially or shares the membership to some organisation for instance. author TomT0m / talk page 10:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- +1. It can be called a class. --Infovarius (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- +1 for class. --Epìdosis 11:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
So, is instance of (P31)set of mythological Greek characters (Q26214208) OK? --Epìdosis 08:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC) @Innocent bystander, Jane023, Jura1, Melderick:. --Epìdosis 14:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Would like to also hear @TomT0m: opinion about the naming (Not sure it was what he meant). As for set of mythological Greek characters (Q26214208) itself, you will need to add a "subclass of" claim to it (maybe subclass of (P279)Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) ?). --Melderick (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Olympic Games
Hey folks :)
I am currently working with a bunch of people on a showcase for Wikidata and the query service. The idea is that we show how powerful and useful Wikidata is through the data we have about the Olympic Games. We'll do some nice queries and visualizations and so on. The data we have already seems to be pretty good for the past games. Is anyone already working on coordination around the 2016 games? It'd be totally awesome if we can push Wikidata as the place to go to for up-to-date open data about the Olympics. There is already Wikidata:WikiProject Olympics which could use a few more participants it seems.
Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Has anyone from your office approached the organisers, the IOC, for a collaboration? they might give us a data feed, or "press" accreditation to receive updates. We should also consider which language Wikipedia(s) we can work with to get data into infoboxes or other templates, in a speedy manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- No we have not yet. If anyone has contacts and you want us to we can though. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- In these days, I'm trying to harvest info from infoboxes (at least, for these Games) and add some (external) IDs for athletes. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- In a case like this, I think an approach would come best from your office, or even the WMF, rather than individual volunteers. Once contact is established, then of course volunteers can continue the relationship. Chapters should equally contact their national bodies, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jens from my team is on it now. Let's see how far he gets. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Jens got a reply. They are already working with WMCH. However since they are understandably very busy this will only happen in Autumn. So nothing that will help us right now unfortunately. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jens from my team is on it now. Let's see how far he gets. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- No we have not yet. If anyone has contacts and you want us to we can though. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Who is responsible at WMCH for that collaboration? Would be great to know, in order to ask them again in autumn…
—MisterSynergy (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jens is currently in touch to figure this out. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Who is responsible at WMCH for that collaboration? Would be great to know, in order to ask them again in autumn…
- Here is some of what we have so far: https://wikidata.metaphacts.com/resource/Olympics More ideas and other feedback welcome. It seems we don't have particularly good coverage for this year yet. So I am not sure we'll be able to create enough buzz just yet. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
StrepHit IEG renewal: call for support
(Begging pardon if you have already read this in the Wikidata mailing list)
Hi everyone,
If you care about data quality, you probably know that high quality is synonym of references to trusted sources.
That's why the primary sources tool is out there as a Wikidata gadget: Wikidata:Primary_sources_tool
The tool definitely needs an uplift. That's why I'm requesting a renewal of the StrepHit IEG.
Remember StrepHit, the Web agent that reads authoritative sources and feeds Wikidata with references? These 6 months of work have led to the release of the first version: its datasets are now in the primary sources tool, together with Freebase. To support the IEG renewal, feel free to play with them!
Please follow the instructions in this request for comment to activate the tool: Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Semi-automatic_Addition_of_References_to_Wikidata_Statements
Are you satisfied with it? Do you agree with the current discussion?
If you have any remark for improvement, please help me refine the renewal proposal via its talk page. If you think the primary sources tool requires a boost, please endorse the StrepHit IEG renewal!
m:Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References/Renewal
Cheers, --Hjfocs (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote a note on meta:Grants talk:IEG/StrepHit: Wikidata Statements Validation via References/Renewal. Supposedly that's were users should comment who question the use of the tool
--- Jura 09:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Could Vikidia, the free children's encyclopedia, use Wikidata?
Hello,
For those who don't know, Vikidia is the wiki encyclopedia for children. It uses the same principles as Wikipedia, free-licenced, npov, but adapted to children.
In French, we have more than 22000 articles, and we have opened it in 8 languages by now.
We already use a lot the commons media database (through instant commons), and we could use a lot Wikidata, and we're wondering :
- Could we plug Wikidata on Vikidia's wikis to fill the templates?
- Since Vikidia is not part of the WMF*, could its interwikis be centralized on Wikidata?
- if not, should we build our own data repository? and could it still be technically compliant with #1?
Thank you for your answers ! Plyd (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
* Vikidia is served by a French non-profit organization and not by the WMF (and will probably never be due to a bunch of US-related legal restrictions and the WMF's "Simple English" competition).
However Vikidia is very close to the Wikimedia projects, and lots of its contributors like me are also contributors here (or will be when they'll grow up ;) ), and Vikidia is also financially supported by Wikimedia's French chapter
- Hi Plyd,
- It's almost sure that Vikidia pages can be linked from Wikidata items as external identifiers for properties, and this would be a fantastic work that could be easily made by volunteers (you would only have to open some requests here). However, with interwikis, this process would be more complex, and the developers from the WMF would have to take part in it. As Vikidia is not a Wikimedia project, I figure out that, unfortunately, interconnecting by this way the Vikidias via Wikidata is not possible right now. But that's only my view.
- Regards, --abián 10:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes as Abián says. You can not yet use the data from Wikidata in MediaWiki installations outside Wikimedia. I want to make it possible but it'll take time and is not super high on the list of things the development team needs to do right now. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answers.
- Abián: to whom such Vikidia pages external identifiers could be useful, if we cannot use them as interwiki? would it be a start for a later interwiki integration?
- Lydia: what development is needed to reach this data integration into Vikidia? Plyd (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Plyd: You can use such external identifiers as interwikis but, since a real-time feature isn't available, you'll need a bot to keep them synchronized. This system could be similar to the old system that kept the Wikimedia interwikis synchronized until 2012. --abián 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, for the Klexikon we would like to use Wikidata content in info boxes, for geographical articles. Would that be possible nowadays? Kind regards Z. (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Milestone
Now we have Rosa, rosa... (Q26000000) and marriageable age (P3000).--GZWDer (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Err, marriageable age (P3000) appears to have been created without anybody other than the proposer commenting on the proposal. I thought that was frowned upon? Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's from Mr. Given Names (Jura1).--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- this is hardly adequate to meet the requirements at Wikidata:Property creators#Update the proposal page. As can be seen here and on the property's talk page, the property was not created correctly, according to Wikidata:Property creators#Create the property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
SOFIXIT! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: How should I fix a property created without a consensus? Why should Andy not mention the incomplete creation (whether or not he or someone else fixes it)? Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: My answer yesterday diappeared somewhere. The page you linked to above, does not tell what "consensus" is in this case. It only tells a proposal should stay at least a week, and it did. The proposal was un-opposed during that week, and I guess Jura1 also supported it, otherwise a creation would look strange. A proposal without oppose during one week could therefor be interpreted as "consensus". I agree that in the best of universes, it should have stayed open longer and with more support. But as I said, the result, as Jura1 interpreted it, was possible. You should also be aware that a group of simlair properties (P2999 for example) were created at the same time. Only looking into one single proposal is therefor not enough to see the whole picture. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: it's true consensus isn't explicitly defined there, but "no objection" != "consensus support" unless it is explicitly defined that way in my experience - if jura (or anyone else) supports a proposal that has no comments then they should vote in support of it not just create it. I'm also very curious as to why you think creating a bunch of properties at the same time without consensus is better than or excuses creating one without consensus!? Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: We obviously have different opinions here. I see a sort of consensus where you don't. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is stretching the idea of "consensus", but OK for that. Let's suppose that Jura1 gave support votes and that might be taken as the absolute minimum to create a property. Border line to be honest in this time of summer vacations. What I wonder is how critical Jura1 has been. I especially wonder why age of candidacy (P2998) was not discussed more, as the proposal on voting age was commented on by me, as being overlapping with right to vote (P2964), but also different in approach. Voting age and age of candidacy are clearly related. Also I agree with Andy that the created properties and talk pages were less than complete. By the way, the way of reacting by Jura1 below - question about archiving, hence showing he has read this thread and that he doesn't give a .... - is a blunt insult to the people raising questions here. Lymantria (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: I do not say that these properties do not have flaws. What is "threshold of adulthood as recognized or declared in law". Which law, we have many! "youngest age at which a person can legally consent to sexual activity". Looks more like a subject to a paper than a number to me! "minimum age at which a person is generally allowed by law to marry". I do not think that we have fully agreed about a definition of marriage yet! "minimum age at which a person can legally qualify to hold certain elected government offices". Age is not the only threshold here. There are several others! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. Lymantria (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: I do not say that these properties do not have flaws. What is "threshold of adulthood as recognized or declared in law". Which law, we have many! "youngest age at which a person can legally consent to sexual activity". Looks more like a subject to a paper than a number to me! "minimum age at which a person is generally allowed by law to marry". I do not think that we have fully agreed about a definition of marriage yet! "minimum age at which a person can legally qualify to hold certain elected government offices". Age is not the only threshold here. There are several others! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is stretching the idea of "consensus", but OK for that. Let's suppose that Jura1 gave support votes and that might be taken as the absolute minimum to create a property. Border line to be honest in this time of summer vacations. What I wonder is how critical Jura1 has been. I especially wonder why age of candidacy (P2998) was not discussed more, as the proposal on voting age was commented on by me, as being overlapping with right to vote (P2964), but also different in approach. Voting age and age of candidacy are clearly related. Also I agree with Andy that the created properties and talk pages were less than complete. By the way, the way of reacting by Jura1 below - question about archiving, hence showing he has read this thread and that he doesn't give a .... - is a blunt insult to the people raising questions here. Lymantria (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: We obviously have different opinions here. I see a sort of consensus where you don't. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: it's true consensus isn't explicitly defined there, but "no objection" != "consensus support" unless it is explicitly defined that way in my experience - if jura (or anyone else) supports a proposal that has no comments then they should vote in support of it not just create it. I'm also very curious as to why you think creating a bunch of properties at the same time without consensus is better than or excuses creating one without consensus!? Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: My answer yesterday diappeared somewhere. The page you linked to above, does not tell what "consensus" is in this case. It only tells a proposal should stay at least a week, and it did. The proposal was un-opposed during that week, and I guess Jura1 also supported it, otherwise a creation would look strange. A proposal without oppose during one week could therefor be interpreted as "consensus". I agree that in the best of universes, it should have stayed open longer and with more support. But as I said, the result, as Jura1 interpreted it, was possible. You should also be aware that a group of simlair properties (P2999 for example) were created at the same time. Only looking into one single proposal is therefor not enough to see the whole picture. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: How should I fix a property created without a consensus? Why should Andy not mention the incomplete creation (whether or not he or someone else fixes it)? Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

- That said, I still think these properties were created according to our rules as they are written today. We may or may not afterword have objections against the ideas behind these properties, but that could also be said about the properties we have had since Wikidata was a tiny toddler. We now have a PfD about a property which was created in May 2013. Our properties are not carved into rock. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned that GZWDer has been almost spamming the property proposal pages the last few weeks. Even a single new property should be well-justified; proposing a large number of properties definitely needs clear explanation. Maybe a wikiproject that has specific needs, or a plan to run some sort of bot pulling a particular set of data, or some consensus effort. In this case among the many age-related properties there was a comment that seems to have been ignored, to just create a single "minimum age" property and use appropriate qualifiers. This seems like a better approach than this host of new properties. I can understand in the case of external identifiers why it's good to have a long and detailed set of properties. But I'm definitely not sure in this case. In any case, jumping in and creating them without any comments at all really does seem to defeat what we've been trying to achieve with improving property creation recently. And proposing an overwhelming number like this makes it hard on everybody. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I can do the archiving step in an efficient way. Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/2016/07 seems like a lot of work. Could someone else do it for me?
--- Jura 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I can do the archiving step in an efficient way. Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/2016/07 seems like a lot of work. Could someone else do it for me?
- Somehow I find some of these comments disrespectful towards GZWDer who went through writing and creating all these proposals. They even took it upon them to create a separate subpages for each one. To comment here on GZWDer's work without actually reading the proposals or to commment here without bothering to participate in the discussion just illustrates how much we should probably care about these comments.
--- Jura 11:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)- I never considered his making of many proposals as "spamming". I hope it inspires. Still, I may critisize some of his proposals. Lymantria (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- The motivation he filed for this proposal was "(Add your motivation for this property here.)". I think in general a person who proposes a new property should engage in more effort to justify why a new proposal is needed. I think this leads to people writing justifiably that GZWDer engages in spamming the page. ChristianKl (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Somehow I find some of these comments disrespectful towards GZWDer who went through writing and creating all these proposals. They even took it upon them to create a separate subpages for each one. To comment here on GZWDer's work without actually reading the proposals or to commment here without bothering to participate in the discussion just illustrates how much we should probably care about these comments.
query wikipedia categories
I would like to update w:de:Portal:Physik/Kalender. I thought of searching wikidata for physicists with this query, but most of the resulting people are only remotely connected to physics. Is there a way to only find Items, whose articles are categorized in w:de:Kategorie:Physiker? The category should only contain people known for their significant contribution to physics. I cannot think of any other filter criteria to test for.--Debenben (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- PS: Why is tinyurl on the blacklist? A registered users is not allowed to post tinyurl links on talk pages? seriously?--Debenben (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Use PetScan which can make a combination of a SPARQL query and articles in a category. And the shortener is blacklisted because spammer could abuse it. Dedicated shortener for SPARQL queries is being developed. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think he wanted to get not only items (PetScan functionality), but also dates and other stuff from SPARQL query. In this case you probably can't get desired results quickly and without pain :) The easiest would be running Petscan and then pass got items into SPARQL, but I think it coul time-out. But there should be some tool to make this process not so painful. --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer, PetScan did the job. I even wrote a python script to do the subsequent SPARQL querys, but since I don't have any experience I ran into more and more problems like the datetime package didn't exept negative years and people born on 1.1. when no date was specified. I don't think it is really worth the effort. I might still try it a different time, just to get used to the wikidata tools and formats.--Debenben (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think he wanted to get not only items (PetScan functionality), but also dates and other stuff from SPARQL query. In this case you probably can't get desired results quickly and without pain :) The easiest would be running Petscan and then pass got items into SPARQL, but I think it coul time-out. But there should be some tool to make this process not so painful. --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Use PetScan which can make a combination of a SPARQL query and articles in a category. And the shortener is blacklisted because spammer could abuse it. Dedicated shortener for SPARQL queries is being developed. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Multi-purpose external ID properties
Should properties like Metacritic ID (P1712) be subdivided? It currently has uses like:
- The Godfather (Q47703) -> movie/the-godfather
- The Sopranos, season 2 (Q3468641) -> tv/the-sopranos/season-2
- Portal (Q274897) -> game/pc/portal
- Live at Reading (Q1990678) -> music/live-at-reading/nirvana
which suggests at least four sub-types. IMSLP ID (P839) has similar issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260) has at least 50 possible sub-properties. @André Costa (WMSE): It is maybe better for the constraints to split it. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- ... and IMDb ID (P345). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- No - what's the purpose or benefit from subdividing? The same service is providing an identifier that is suitable for all these different types of entities, there aren't any overlaps. Seems like a needless multiplication of properties to split. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Well, one advantage would probably be that some of the Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260)-statements should always have RAÄ number (P1262) as a qualifier (those starting with "raa/fmi/") while others never should do that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- For such checks you can add a complex constraint [1]. No need to create 50 subproperties. Also for Metacritic ID (P1712) I can't see any advantage of splitting the property. --Pasleim (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The advantage of "one property to rule them all" is that P1260 is continuously extended to include more and more museums and other collections. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: With respect to Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260) I've considered whether it might be worth splitting myself. The two main benefits IMHO are better constraint checking and easier sparql use (i.e. its way easier to ask "if Q<id> has P<id>" than if Q<id> has P<id> and the value starts with <string>"). That said other than the main
raa
entries it's unclear which of the other subdivisions of Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260) would warrant their own properties. It is also worth noting that new properties (for external properties) more often seem to favour splitting (as far as I've observed). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: With respect to Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260) I've considered whether it might be worth splitting myself. The two main benefits IMHO are better constraint checking and easier sparql use (i.e. its way easier to ask "if Q<id> has P<id>" than if Q<id> has P<id> and the value starts with <string>"). That said other than the main
- The advantage of "one property to rule them all" is that P1260 is continuously extended to include more and more museums and other collections. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- For such checks you can add a complex constraint [1]. No need to create 50 subproperties. Also for Metacritic ID (P1712) I can't see any advantage of splitting the property. --Pasleim (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Well, one advantage would probably be that some of the Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260)-statements should always have RAÄ number (P1262) as a qualifier (those starting with "raa/fmi/") while others never should do that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- No - what's the purpose or benefit from subdividing? The same service is providing an identifier that is suitable for all these different types of entities, there aren't any overlaps. Seems like a needless multiplication of properties to split. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Another example is Rotten Tomatoes ID (P1258). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Notability of items for templates
If there are no interwiki links but one, is there a benefit of creating items for pages in template namespace? @GZWDer:
--- Jura 07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- See WD:N. These are vaild sitelinks.--GZWDer (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- We can edit that page. The question is if there is a benefit of having these items in terms of one of Wikidata's objectives. To provide interwiki links, we don't need them, as there is just one sitelink.
--- Jura 07:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC) - We never know when they can be interconnected with topic's main template (P1424) or corresponding template (P2667). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- So if they meet point 3, we could create them.--- Jura 07:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- On svwiki we have a tradition of never deleting templates that has been used in articles. They are instead put into the Template museum. I do not see the point of interwiki in such templates and I do not see the point in having any of them here. They still exists on svwiki to be able to read the history of an article, nothing else. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- So if they meet point 3, we could create them.--- Jura 07:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Somewhat related: for those interested in adding statements to these items:
- 47 links to add instance of (P31)=Wikimedia template (Q11266439) to items without statements in categories of sitelinks on Category:Templates (Q3740): en, nl, el, fr, hr, sr, eu, hu, nn, sq, no, eo, bs, cs, es, lv, sv, hy, ru, et, lt, pt, az, simple, ja, ka, ba, ca, kk, sl, fi, uk, pl, mk, zh, sh, id, la, de, be_x_old, da, be, tr, ro, sk, bg, it, depth:8 ns:10
- I did several 10000 of these recently and enwiki was completed just now. I'm currently doing frwiki. Adding that avoids us mixing them up with more useful items.
--- Jura 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are many [somehow] useless isolated templates in different wikis. Many of them will be deleted in near future and here on WD will remain empty items, many other will be without interwiki equivalents for long time or forever. I don't support mass creation of WD items for all templates in all wikis. In rowiki, for example, there are such useless templates with WD items: ro:Format:Country alias CUB (cat - 571), ro:Format:Country flag alias ANG (cat - 748), ro:Format:Area code MT (cat - 66), ro:Format:Inimioară-San Marino-1862 (cat - 61), etc, etc... XXN, 18:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- If they get empty, they should come up on Wikidata:Database reports/to delete/empty template items. Usually these get deleted once in a while.
--- Jura 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- If they get empty, they should come up on Wikidata:Database reports/to delete/empty template items. Usually these get deleted once in a while.
New gadget CoordinateDiffMap now available
We welcome a new addition to our collection of gadgets: CoordinateDiffMap. This gadget makes use of the new map technology that was deployed some time ago. It shows a map while viewing diffs that involve coordinates, so you can review them quickly.

If you encountered bugs while using this gadget, please leave a task on Phabrictor in our Wikidata-Gadgets project. You can also leave suggestions for new gadgets or report bugs for other gadgets!
Oh, and if there is enough demand we can also choose to enable this as default. But that is all to the community.
Thanks, Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good, thank you. In case anyone wants to see it in use (after activating the gadget), here's an example diff where coordinates are added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'd love this to be set to default! Thanks for the great work. --Denny (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Btw, is there a gadget to add this to the item view as well? --Denny (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Use of statements in Wikipedias
Hello, Does any Wikipedias display Wikidata statements inclusive qualifiers and sources? Does any Wikipedias display Wikidata statements with properties which use the quantity datatype, and convert the quantities to use the local preferred units? I would like to see examples of Lua code to do these things. Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have set up some of these in Czech Wikipedia (mostly qualifiers, yet only one case we use references, not yet quantities with unit) but recently splitted one module to multiple submodules which isn't really good example of Lua code. Anyway, you can start at w:cs:Modul:Wikidata. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- For frwiki:
- Qualifiers: for a relatively complex case, "Matériau" and "Statut patrimonial" in fr:Statue de la Liberté.
- Numbers with units and conversion: yes, though in practice, conversion does not seem to be often needed. See fr:Alburquerque (Bohol)
- Showsource : "dernière version" in fr:Python (langage). --Zolo (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- On svwiki we have support for units, some qualifiers and also some arbitrary accessed data. sv:John Bauer shows the qualifiers for start and end-date of spouse (P26). We lack support for unit-conversion and that is probably necessary in some cases. One such is if somebody uses non-metric units like miles and feet. A Swedish mile is much longer than an English mile and only pilots know about feet. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the examples from cswiki, frwiki and svwiki. We have a project in the Danish Wikipedia to improve how it uses Wikidata, and we will use these examples as inspiration. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Rename
Hello. Is there a way to show in a wikidata page of a sports team that its change its name in 2014? Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Use official name (P1448) with date qualifiers. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
One or more property examples?
The question whether we should use preferably one property example or preferably some examples is discussed at Property talk:P1855. Please share your opinions. Lymantria (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion really needs input from other people than Lymantria, Pigsonthewing and myself. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe the issue is a bit too "meta". I could not tell in easy words what the property is about -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What about the extensive (mis)use at ethnic group (P172)? --Succu (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just because there can be an excessive number of examples doesn't mean that the maximum should always be 1. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Property proposals needing comments
Thinking about some properties that have been created recently without much participation on the proposal, I realised that before any requirement for a minimum number of comments could be introduced that we need some way of highlighting property proposals that have been open a while without much input. My initial thought is a page which lists or transcludes them. A bot should be able to add any which meet certain criteria - open >= 14 days AND fewer than 3 unique signatures on the page (i.e. proposer + 2 others) is my initial thinking but I'm not set on these. Humans could of course add any others they come across that need more input for different reasons (e.g. lots of comments but no votes, third opinion needed, etc); to keep the page tidy a bot would remove all closed proposals. I think a page is better than a category as a page appears on watchlists rather than requiring people to look at a category, although I don't object to a category as well. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- As long as we don't introduce a strict community rule ("must be open X days with at least Y votes") but use it as help to increase participation, I strongly support this idea! -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea. Lymantria (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Like -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea. Lymantria (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Encouraging more participation would be good, requiring it would be harmful. The essay at en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus also makes useful points; notenlast "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, this proposal is only about encouraging participation. I believe that requiring it would not be a bad thing, but I am not proposing that here (or anywhere else currently) and arguments for and against required participation are not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- If someone writes the bot to do it we can also add it to the weekly summary every week. Just add it to Wikidata:Status updates/Next. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. Unfortunately I do not have the skills required to write a bot, so someone else will need to volunteer to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe a mere aging report is sufficient. If they haven't been closed after two weeks, it's likely they need further input.
--- Jura 10:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)- That's a good point, although some will be just waiting for a property creator to spot it's been marked [Ready] but their presence on this page should alert them to that if the category hasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I have created the first version of the page at Wikidata:Property proposal/Attention needed. I've used a slightly arbitrary cut-off of 20 July for the starting list, including only those proposals with the latest obvious activity on or before that date. This means there are currently 34 subpages listed (a handful with more than one property proposal on them). As I can't program a bot all updates will have to be manual at this point, I will try to do it but all help greatly appreciated.
Please give some attention to these proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is also now Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview --Pasleim (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Caption for audio and video files
We currently have media legend (P2096) to give a caption to image files, but I can't find an equivalent property for audio or video? If there isn't one, should media legend (P2096) expanded to "media legend" or do we need new properties? I'm currently using it for the caption of audio at Ding Dong Bell (Q5278123). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Expanding the domain of media legend (P2096) seems to me the better option than creating new properties. --Pasleim (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I cannot see any problems with extending the range of this property. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
[unarchived] Following no objections I have now made this change. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion about Medalists: need opinion
I just want to inform of the discussion in WikiProject Olympics, for the great impact it can have, we have a lot of items on athletes, competitions and championships. Any opinion is welcome --ValterVB (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata:Request a query
I started a page for requesting queries (Wikidata:Request a query). I don't think we have a page for that yet, and hopefully it will be useful. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- This was the main request page till now, but yes, we probably need some "official" page for requests. But we definetely need to make a link to it somewhere. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jens from my team is currently trying to work out a concept for a portal page for all things query service. I'll tell him to also include this page. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Not able to save
I'm trying to add chief executive officer to (Q223763) but the save button does not turn blue. Any thoughts on what I am missing? I added the field, the entry, a start date and a reference, but no luck.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Does the person have a item on Wikidata? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. It that a problem?--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. You need to create an item about person. --Edgars2007 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- What fields need to meet the notability standard and which do not, and how can I tell?--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note that notability standard differs substantially from standard on Wikipedias. --Jklamo (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- This fulfills a structural need though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- In which case the person is notable here and you can create the item. However you must create the item first before trying to use it in another item. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- This fulfills a structural need though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note that notability standard differs substantially from standard on Wikipedias. --Jklamo (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- What fields need to meet the notability standard and which do not, and how can I tell?--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. You need to create an item about person. --Edgars2007 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. It that a problem?--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Proper nouns
I'm a bit confused about the labels for some items. Some have the first word capitalized, e.g., 'Radar astronomy', as if it is a proper name like 'Las Vegas'. Aren't terms like radar astronomy supposed to be like 'radar astronomy'? In this case both 'Radar astronomy' and 'radar astronomy' refer to the same thing. Or, does wikidata prefer both? --Marshallsumter (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Generally Wikidata prefers lowercase labels for common nouns (in English and Welsh at least, in German all nouns are generally capitalised), however many labels are taken from the title of the associated Wikipedia article which canonically starts with a capital letter. My approach is to decapitalise if I'm editing the labels for any other reason but not to go out of my way to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also convert English noun titles to lowercase when I stumble upon them -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Fuzheado likes this. - I also tend to downcase things when I see them. -- Fuzheado (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What do you think of it? What would be a good way to structure these items?
--- Jura 06:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, I know the reason why, but "Who painted Q750058?" looks simply great :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- You don't believe the effort it took us to have QID match the name of the painting ;) --- Jura
- For this sample, we should display the title property, not the item label
--- Jura 06:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC) - We shouldn't. Your previous proposal of a similar vein was disagreed with and this adds little value to that proposal. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- We probably should and we generally find this most interesting. I'd be interested in an explanation for your disagreeing view.
--- Jura 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)- I don't think question items are a good idea. To begin with, because they are not data. Perhaps a question-wiki should be started. Lymantria (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- What definition do you use for data that it doesn't match? It's similar to queries for which we have a namespace. We could link pages to such items.
--- Jura 06:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)- A question in itself is not data, the answer may or may not be found in data. It would be a serious mistake to treat questions as if they themselves belong to the database. From another angle: What are boundaries of question items? Each claim of any item bears the answer to a question.... You'd have to define what are notable questions and what are not. That seems beyond the scope of wikidata. Good questions are interesting however, my remark on a question wiki was not a joke.
- And about queries, they are not items. Good thing. Lymantria (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think queries are meant to be entities, not items. At least, that's why there is a separate namespace for them. (Not that it currently works).
- I agree that we'd need to define what type of questions we'd want. Similar to queries and lists.
--- Jura 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- A question in itself is not data => This is a highly questionable claim. Anything stored is data. Plus, it can be used to define the properties some properties of the datas, the properties themselves are datas. For example, in an OWL ontology, class expressions are just part of the ontology on almost the same level of over datas and can themselves be queried, if I'm not wrong. author TomT0m / talk page 10:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- What definition do you use for data that it doesn't match? It's similar to queries for which we have a namespace. We could link pages to such items.
- I don't think question items are a good idea. To begin with, because they are not data. Perhaps a question-wiki should be started. Lymantria (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Edits done by Xmlizer
Hi you all, Xmlizer (talk • contribs • logs) the day before yesterday used reCh to do some semi-automatic edits but teh user imported too many useless data on Wikidata (example). A check of user's latest edits is needed. Could someone help me in this work? --★ → Airon 90 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I created User:Stryn/wrongpictures and User:Stryn/wrongpictures2 to possible find easier those wrong pictures. Some of them are correct additions though. Anyway those lists contains just some 6000 of his/her last edits, there are more than this, for example Q2749670. --Stryn (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I updated the page(s) and added all of user's image additions. --Stryn (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Creating an CC0 OTRS form for data
Hi all
As previously written about Lydia some people have been asking about an OTRS form for releasing databases or parts of databases to Wikidata and that WMF legal have asked for a draft. To get this started I have asked on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons about their CC0 OTRS which is:
- I hereby affirm that I, [your name here], am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email.
- I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
- I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
- I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
- I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
- I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
- [your name here] date
What do people think about this as an OTRS form for Wikidata? The only issue I can see is the sentence that says I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen
There are a lot of other questions about practically how Wikidata could have an OTRS system but if we could focus on a draft for WMF legal to approve I think that would be helpful.
Thanks very much
--John Cummings (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Check digit
Many of the IDs we use (ISNI, ISBN etc) have check digits. As the number of Wikidata items grows massively, with more and more people using our IDs in their systems, will we suffer from not having a check digit in our IDs? Should we give thought to using one, before it's to late? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- +1 Ping @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure how that would look like in practice. Do you already have an idea? Is it actually a problem somewhere right now? If so what is the issue exactly? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Laddo: This is a good way to reinforce the quality of WD data. As example for CAS Registry Number (P231), we have that check rule. To implement that check we can use 2 ways:- Create a new constraint model
- Implement in the Wikibase software some in-house constraint checks which prevent the saving of a value which is not respecting the check rule
- But according to the development plan, this is not planned.
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) By the way, can you give us some details about the future of constraints reports ? Should this kind of quality control included in the WD core or not ? I am a little afraid that relying on external bots will lead to broken tools in the future when the bot operators will stop performing those tasks. We should have at least several bots with the same code doing those actions is order to be sure that even if one bot operators leave the community we still have someone who can continue the job. In WP communities we have plenty of examples where the tools are broken without any possibility to use them again because nobody knows the code and is ready to take that responsibility to run them. Snipre (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Sorry I didn't understand correctly the remark Snipre (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure how that would look like in practice. Do you already have an idea? Is it actually a problem somewhere right now? If so what is the issue exactly? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy Mabbett. Too late unless we create a new format to number our items. You can't add a check digit when the main part of the ID is random. Snipre (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): I'm suggesting we put effort into evaluating whether or not we should deal with this before it becomes a problem, just as ISNI etc must have thought it would be. I appreciate it would be a nightmare to do; but perhaps (probably?) less of a nightmare than being forced to so it later. The simplest way might be to append a checkdigit, so Q12345 would become Q12345-n (where "n" is the check digit). Or to append check letters (A for 1, through H for 8, J for 9 (avoiding "I" because it looks like "1") , X for 10), like Q12345X. Another alternative would be to renumber everything, so Q12345 would become Q12345n, but then you'd need to deal with conflicts. Ouch! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for this. I've worked with identifier systems with and without check digits; there are only two purposes served by check digits: (1) when you expect a considerable amount of data entry to be done by hand (for example with credit card numbers entered by hand on websites etc.) then the check digit serves as a way to limit (but not eliminate) transcription errors, and (2) when you want to make it harder for people to guess a valid identifier (but if the algorithm is known that is hardly a big stumbling block). The downside of check digits is they make the identifier longer. None of these considerations matter for systems that look up and share identifiers digitally. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No "founder" as position held?
Is it true that there is no Property:P39 for "founder" of something, such as (co)-founder of Wikipedia? Or founder of a company? Or do we have something we're using instead? -- Fuzheado (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- founded by (P112). --Yair rand (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can search in the property namespace by prepending "P:" to your search string, e.g. P:founder or P:parent. LaddΩ chat ;) 21:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does "N⁰ of injured" always add "±1"?
That's really very annoying, trying to enter the correct number of injured, but the entry permanently keeps adding "±1" to the number when I click save - but I didn't enter it! >:(( Q25980145. --SI 21:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is phab:T115269 and related tasks, possibly the most annoying bug with Wikidata currently. The software is guessing that the precision of the entered value is ±1 unit (which is more often wrong than not). When you are entering exact values you need to enter the value followed by
+-0
(or±0
) to tell the software that the uncertainty of this value is 0. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC) - We're currently working on a fix for that one and related issues. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thx for your answers, I already had found it myself, just was too annoyed & busy to report here. Strange & funny effect: when you enter the number with (x) decimal digits, the ± reduces to ±0.(x)1. Da sag nochmal einer, Wikidata-Software hätte keinen Humor ;) --SI 22:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which is often the correct behaviour, though. If you say the height of a person is 1.75cm, then you usually do mean 1.75±0.01cm, no? --Denny (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you might mean equally mean 1.75±0.00m, 1.75±0.01m, 1.75±0.005m, 1.75±0.05m, 1.75±0.1m or 1.75±0.25m depending on the precision of your measurement. 1.75±0.005m and 1.75±0.01m are probably equally likely for people in every day usage but all are possible depending on the usecase and if a source doesn't say, you don't know what accuracy was used to measure. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which is often the correct behaviour, though. If you say the height of a person is 1.75cm, then you usually do mean 1.75±0.01cm, no? --Denny (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thx for your answers, I already had found it myself, just was too annoyed & busy to report here. Strange & funny effect: when you enter the number with (x) decimal digits, the ± reduces to ±0.(x)1. Da sag nochmal einer, Wikidata-Software hätte keinen Humor ;) --SI 22:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #220

- Discussions
- Events/Blogs/Press
- Ongoing: Repository Fringe
- Ongoing: ICBO (slides)
- Upcoming: CCBWIKI
- Localités au fil de l'eau
- WDQ, obsolete?
- BigQuery, Wikidata & AgreeList — idea
- Other Noteworthy Stuff
- You can now see the very first steps towards structured data support for Wikimedia Commons.
- You can now translate all sister project pages to your language, like Wikidata:Wikipedia. Please, link to them from your projects to give your fellow users chance to learn Wikidata basics.
- You can now enable the CoordinateDiffMap Gadget in your preferences to get a map for coordinate changes.
- There is a new command line tool to extract taxonomies from Wikidata
- Simple guide to help Wikipedia editors find Wikidata IDs. In English - please translate into other languages!
- You can now use Wikidata to do cool things in Mapbox with the Mapbox iOS SDK
- IPTC's NewsCodes Working Group has mapped the top two levels of hierarchical terms of Media Topics to Wikidata
- WMDE's progress report for the annual plan grant with a focus on Wikidata has been published
- Need to query Wikidata, but lack SPARQL skills? There is now Wikidata:Request a query for you!
- Did you know?
- Newest properties: residence time of water, railway signalling system, located in protected area, Rolling Stone artist ID, French national research structure identifier, backup or reserve team or crew, laws applied, surface tension, Standard Geographical Classification code, World Archery ID, Conservatoire du littoral ID, Australian Heritage Database Place ID, Cadw Monument ID, Marine Regions Geographic ID, valid in place, Galiciana ID, zanikleobce.cz abandoned objects ID, Untappd brewery ID, retirement age
- Query examples: frequency of Romans' praenomen (source), movies by number of actors who studied at RADA (source), actors directed by Tony Scott + number of appearances (source), actors directed more than 20 times by the same director (source), actors directed more than 20 times by the same director with years (source)
- Newest database reports: list of Romans, minimum ages by country
- Development
- Got the demo system for structured data on Commons ready for first show (see above)
- Wikipedia editors will soon get a notification when an article they created was connected to a Wikidata item. Thanks Matej! (phabricator:T110604)
- Worked on improving handling of +-1 etc in quantities (phabricator:T115269)
- Added a message to the suggester that pops up when you search for items or properties. When no matching property or item is found it will now tell you. (phabricator:T140085)
- Considerably improved our browser tests to find more issues before You ever see them.
- Added Haida as a language available for monolingual text properties (phabricator:T138131)
- Monthly Tasks
- Hack on one of these.
- Help develop the next summary here!
- Contribute to a Showcase item
- Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
- Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
- Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
Highest Point Property:P610 consistency
Looking at Finland Q33 I find the highest point being the mountain Halti at coordinates 69°18'28.888"N, 21°15'53.954"E. Now Halti Q216035 is reporting its coordinates at 69°18'46"N, 21°17'8"E. Interestingly, Halti has its own "highest point" at 69°19'23"N, 21°16'44"E, which lies in Norway (because the mountain happens to be on the border), and has its own data item, Ráisduattarháldi Q10658379 with coordinates 69°19'22"N, 21°16'44"E. This is rather confusing. --Krukrus (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why is that kind of information listed there as qualifiers anyway. Everything should be in the linked item. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the highest point of Finland is located at Halti (Q216035), but the highest point of that mountain is located in Norway. The highest point in Finland is therefor located at the slope of that mountain. That may solve itself in the near future, since it has been proposed to the Norwegian Government that the mountain should be given to Finland as birthday present when Finland becomes 100 years. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Strange history of Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504) – what to do?
Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504) was originally about the Ukrainian cyclist Sergiy Lagkuti, who is now described by Sergiy Lagkuti (Q18201813). The item in question, Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504), now describes the 2015 edition of a French cycling race (Item history). What to do in such cases? Delete the item and create a new one for the cycling race? Or let everything as it is (apart from the “old” de-label+description)? —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed the mess and reverted to the original. The Ukrainian cyclist is now on Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504), and the cycling race on 2015 French Road Cycling Championships (Q26208714). --Stryn (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Spam, or not
It's hard to tell whether these items are significant, or not:
(all edited by the same accounts). I'm concerned that listing them at Wikidata:Requests for deletions may see them speedily deleted, with no time for proper discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- IndraStra Global (Q22917772) and Eurasia Review (Q22918113) Seem to be useful because they are used as references on Wikipedia quite a bit.
- Amrita Jash (Q26203844) Probably not needed. How many Indian journalists are there out of a population of 1.3 billion? If they don't have a Wikipedia article, then they probably don't need a Wikidata item. Danrok (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- IndraStra Global (Q22917772) shows up about 10 times on Wikipedia as a source, with some questions of whether it is a reliable source. Following through on one page on WP that used an IndraStra article - the article was a copy of a paper published elsewhere (it was attributed, but seemed to be a straight copy). No details on website of ownership/location/staff etc - SPAM
- Amrita Jash (Q26203844) - seems to be like an attempt to create a web presence and two of the identifiers are fake. SPAM - and says that she is the Editor-in-Chief, IndraStra Global, so spam for that as well!
- Eurasia Review (Q22918113) - ~1,700 hits on WP as a source. Site lists location and ownership (Buzz Future LLC), shows authorship of articles and affiliated organisations, seems to have been around a few years, and is discussed elsewhere as an entity in its own right here - not spam – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robevans123 (talk • contribs) at 18:56, 2 ago 2016 (UTC).
- A useful analysis, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems there's currently a plan to have all sources on Wikidata and Wikipedia in Wikidata. That means that it's useful to have items for authors of scientific papers. The INSI number isn't fake but wrongly formatted. The creator of the entry put "-" between the number blocks instead of " ". The Google Scholar ID was also wrongly formatted. Apart from that the ID's are properly sourced and therefore fulfill the criteria of the Wikidata item being based on authoritative sources. ChristianKl (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cool - I retract my judgement of spam on Amrita Jash (Q26203844)! Still not convinced by IndraStra Global (Q22917772) - seems to be a place for Amrita Jash (Q26203844) to publish their articles that are not published elsewhere, alongside other articles that are available elsewhere. @ChristianKl: - where is the plan "to have all sources on Wikidata and Wikipedia in Wikidata" being discussed? Sounds really very useful. Would like to find out more about it. Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Enhance_the_ProveIt_gadget is the grant to develop this future. In the achieve of last months project chat (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/07#Reference_items_for_ProveIt) there's a discussion. There's also WikiCite (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016). In general I believe that everything that has a INSI number is notable enough for it to have a Wikidata item. ChristianKl (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- So is the argument that anyone with an ISNI should have an item? And/ or anyone with a Google Scholar ID? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Having looked again at Amrita Jash (Q26203844), and in a bit more depth at ISNI and Google Scholar ID, I think I'm going to change mind mind yet again! At ISNI Amrita Jash (Q26203844) has one article attributed as author (its an M Phil dissertation and/or (it is unclear) a conference paper). In either guise is doesn't seem to be cited elsewhere. ISNI is basically a unique identifier to avoid ambiguity based on a number of other identifiers. If you're somewhere on a database of "contributors to creative works and those active in their distribution, including researchers, inventors, writers, artists, visual creators, performers, producers, publishers, aggregators, and more" you'll get an ISN. There are currently ~ 9 million entries. Without getting a list of all contributory databases and checking them all for notability I don't think we should confer notability based on having an ISN (although at least some of the contributory databases may well confer notability).
- Looking at Google Scholar ID - it would appear that it is something that you create for yourself (provided you have an email address at an educational establishment). Not having a such an email address I couldn't go much further to find out what other constraints apply (I'm guessing its self-regulating in that any scholar who claims papers they haven't written will be shot down in flames fairly quickly). In itself a Google Scholar ID (IMO) should not confer notability, although some of the metrics shown might be used to assess notability. In an article (Why every scientist should make his Google Scholar profile public) about the Google Scholar ID I found this example which could be enough to make the person notable for Wikidata.
- So, I'd now regard Amrita Jash (Q26203844) as spam (and I suspect the item might be self-published).
- It strikes me that it may well be useful to assess external identifiers on criteria of completeness, accuracy, usefulness, verifiability, and indication of notability. For example, a National Heritage List for England number (P1216) should be enough to confer notability, it could (potentially) be complete in that there is list of all scheduled monuments etc in England, it is useful as a source of info, and should be pretty accurate. Allowing for the fact that no database is perfect I'd rate it as 99% on all counts. As for Google Scholar ID, I'd rate it as 99% for usefulness, 99% for verifiability, unknown (maybe < 20%) for completeness, 90% for accuracy, and variable (0-99%) for notability. Robevans123 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Our notability criteria are about whether a person can be described by serious publically available sources. INSI and OrcID are a serious publically available sources. Having a database that links an INSI number to a OrcId number is useful. If someone cites a source via ProveIt it's valuable for them to be able to look up information about the author. The OrcID that can tell us where a person is employed can be useful for finding conlicts of interest. ChristianKl (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Speaking as Wikimedian in Residence at ORCID, I don't think an ORCID iD alone confers notability; anyone can set one up for themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. And if you have an ORCID Id you get an ISNI Id (see this). Now Andy is notable in many ways -:) !, but just having an ORCID Id does not (on its own) make him notable. However, if an author is used in ProveIt then it would be fine to add an appropriate WD item for them (and include the INSI/ORCID ids if available). But saying an INSI Id on its own confers notability - then what would stop someone with a bot creating 9 million items on Wikidata? Robevans123 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Speaking as Wikimedian in Residence at ORCID, I don't think an ORCID iD alone confers notability; anyone can set one up for themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe that we should treat items about people (or things) from India any differently to those from any other country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hear hear! Robevans123 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
User Codegazija
Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Codegazija
Grant for Lua module
I have created the application for grant for improving Lua module that makes it easy to use Wikidata in Wikipedias. Please comment. —putnik 06:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I became the first to add employment by economic sector (P2297) (created 13 Nov 2015) to an item (Amsterdam (Q9899)) today. I think that is due to the property having imperfections. The definition "employment by economic sector" suggests there would be a mandatory qualifier - I used field of work (P101). Apart from difficulty in matching sectors, I think it is a bit weird that the total employment is not given anywhere. Now we may just delete this property, as the proposer of it suggests at the talk page. Perhaps it is better, as the property wasn't used until today, to change the description into "employment", without "by economic sector". The economic sector may be added by qualifiers as I did. What do you think? Best regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly, industry (P452) would be more suitable as a qualifier, if the property is to be kept. This area can be a bit problematic, unless all of the data for all countries conforms to the same exact same standard, we end-up comparing apples with oranges. For example, different countries have different methods for calculating their unemployment rate. Danrok (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, while industry is one of the sectors, I would not think of industry (P452). But indeed, this sector thing is a complete mess. But simple employment numbers (less difficult than unemployment numbers!) without sectors would be interesting, I think. Lymantria (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Property proposals and consensus
My proposal for a SoundCloud ID property was posted on 22 July. No one else has commented, so there is one editor (me) in favour, and zero against. Since, in my book, that means there is consensus to create, I marked it as "ready" for creation. This has been reverted by User:Lymantria with the edit summary "not ready as having not gained any support".
Our policy on property creation says:
- new properties should not be created without a proposal/discussion on Wikidata:Property proposal. Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists
It says nothing about requiring additional support.
There is prior discussion at User talk:Lymantria#Property creation (with a follow-up at #Property proposals needing comments, above, where we are assured that requiring additional comments is not proposed) and I am concerned that the false assertion I highlighted there may have had a chilling effect on the application of our policy; to that extent, Lymantria is a "piggy in the middle".
I seek confirmation that our policy as written requires only consensus, not anything beyond that, and that my understanding that the absence of objections equates to consensus is correct.
In the mean time, of course, comments on the proposal in this case, and others with no current comments, will be welcome - more editors commenting on proposals will always be a good thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also think there is problems with our property proposal process, but I don't think trying to twist the letter words is a correct way to fix this. Either we gain concensus that the process is broken and we acknowledge we can play around the linets - but I don't think it's a good idea considering community really don't like arbitrary creations, or we fix it. For example, in your spirit, I proposed that a proposal that did not get any opposition should be created, instead of a proposal that had to gain support. author TomT0m / talk page 12:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: In my opinion you cannot have consensus among one persons. If there has not been a discussion (yet), IMHO the proposal is not ready for creation. Especially in (summer) vacation time, we must be aware of the fact that possible discussion participants are offline. There's no hurry. Lymantria (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Piggy in the middle. You funny man. :)
- @Lymantria: I'd interpret the fact that nobody has something to say as a sign of "tacit consensus". It would encourage initiative on Wikidata (after a certain amount of time) : if somebody is opposed because he's in favor of another way of doing the same thing, or he thinks this should not be done, he/she has to react. The person who tries something should be favored over the one who tacitely oppose. This seems a reasonable thing to do as we don't have a lot of comments on property proposals. author TomT0m / talk page 12:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, the limit of this is with duplicate proposal to avoid someone to create an unwanted of previously rejected property just by repeatedly posting essentially the same proposal. There should be something new. author TomT0m / talk page 12:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: You may wish to read en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. All Wikimedia projects work on that basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: But read Wikidata:Property proposal or Help:Properties: "Before a new property is created, it has to be discussed here. When after some time there are some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created by a property creator or an administrator." That is quite in line with my interpretation of consensus on a proposal. And that is not at all in conflict with en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (while, other than you suggest, this is not the basis of all wikimedia projects, for instance nl:Wikipedia:Consensus has a different angle), while from the silence it is not clear whether the readers but not reactors prefer the status quo (no new property) or change (new property). So consensus on...?? Therefore input is a necessity. Lymantria (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- +1 with Lymantria:
- WD is not WP:en. We can have different rules. Example: notability criteria.
- A property proposal has to be discussed. This means some comments. Without comment, it is impossible to considered that the discussion took place, so consensus can't be compared to no comment.
- Just have a look to the number of properties which are not used (currently 67, see Category:Unused properties) or used only once (currently 263, mainly used in the example case): 330 properties which are not used, representing 12% of the properties. This clearly indicates that the current systems is not working and produces unecessary stuff. Snipre (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has claimed this is en.Wikipedia, nor that we must have the same "rules". That's a straw man. Your claim that a discussion is required is not supported by the policy, quoted at the head of this section (its says "proposal/discussion", which is admittedly ambiguous). Unused properties are also a red herring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much ambiguous about "proposal/discussion". But even if there is, you can IMHO not derive from it that "Your claim that a discussion is required is not supported by the policy". I don't agree that unused properties are a red herring. I noticed it is annoying to quite a few people. What are we creating, maintaining, etc., properties for if they are not used? Why do I have to scroll through 3000+ property names to see if I can find what I want, if 10-20% is cruft? Okay, indeed, a couple of the unused properties above are qualifiers, but still, many properties are not or hardly used. And if they are used 2 or 3 times, still it is pretty useless. Recently I raised the number of uses of EU Transparency Register ID (P2657) from 1 to 11. Still I thought, what's the use of it? Proposer and supporter didn't care much, it seems. So, red herring? I think we have to look for a way to be sure that a property is used with some enthousiasm.
BTW, Andy, I'm a bit fed up with your constant comments on other editors disqualifying their wordings in discussions. Even if they may have imperfections, we are not in a debating club here. There is no reason to bring forward your opinions as facts, while writing as if the other participants are dumb arses. I am quite aware of my lesser capabilities to express myself in your native language. If you want to continue to make it a contest like you do now, let's continue multilangual. But better, let's try to understand each other and see if we can come to some sort of agreement. Lymantria (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)- "proposal/discussion" can be taken to mean "proposal and discussion". It can mean "proposal or discussion". It can even mean "proposal and/or discussion". This is not my opinion, but unequivocal fact. We refer to the existence of such potential alternative meanings as "ambiguity". That you or anyone else take one meaning, and I reasonably take another, or am unclear as to which is meant, is further evidence of that ambiguity. Given that ambiguity, in particular the second of my three examples, it is not correct to say that "discussion is required". Since the ambiguity I illustrate is in the policy, the claim that a discussion is required is not supported by that policy. Given that a property proposed and supported only by one person may be well used, and a property supported by several may be little used, the level of usage is a red herring in a discussion of what the current policy means. That you are "fed up" by having these issues pointed out by me is unfortunate, but does not negate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not fed up with your discussion ("issues pointed out"), but with your tone. Not all of your reactions appear very respectful to the people your reply to. (Most of this last one is an example of how it could be).
About the ambiguity, for me it is clear that "discussion" would not have been mentioned if it were not necessary. If only a proposal was needed, that would have been written down. And I cannot imagine a property proposal discussion without a proposal. But ok, it is ambiguous to you, so it can be ambiguous apparently. I said above I didn't see much ambiguity in it, and your explanation did of course not change that.
So you see ambiguity. Then "and" is one of the possibilities of what you can read in the policy. That's what you say, when you say there is ambiguity. Different interpretations are possible, right? That means that "discussion is required" is a possible reading of the policy. So I think your "Your claim that a discussion is required is not supported by the policy" is not correct.
Of course, you conclude from the ambiguity meta level you cannot conclude that discussion is required. But then, verso, you can not conclude from the policy that discussion is unnecessary either. I don't think that meta level is very helpful. Lymantria (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)- "Different interpretations are possible, right?" Absolutely, that's the very definition of ambiguity. QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not fed up with your discussion ("issues pointed out"), but with your tone. Not all of your reactions appear very respectful to the people your reply to. (Most of this last one is an example of how it could be).
- (edit conflict) @Lymantria: I strongly disagree. There is no magic that can tell you which property will or won't be used. You'll just lose datas with such thoughts and by making the life of volunteers harder. Plus a property might be not used a lot but still needed to model some rare cases. Then ... you'll be happy to have this. This will just restrict our modelling power. author TomT0m / talk page 18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- ??? It's the cruft that is making the life of volunteers harder, as I explained. I agree that not all hardly used properties are cruft, your describe a way of use that isn't. But I propose nothing yet, apart from that I want to wait some more time than a week if there has not been any reaction to a proposal, as I expect that eventually at least one person apart from the proposer shares his or her opinion before I create a property - but even that is not really a proposal. It is hardly making lifes of volunteers harder. But still, I think that a lot of properties are frustratingly low used, and it would not ask much of anybody to think of what we can do to gain enthusiast participation. If you say that thinking "will just restrict our modelling power", I really don't understand that. Lymantria (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: From my experience, having to wait a long time beetween a proposal and its creation is an enthusiasm killer, really. Especially if you feel alone on your interest. My position is to trust the proposer : either we have something to do like "this property is redundant, just do like this / this clearly breaks WMF policies / whatever", so that he can work on whatever he want, or we let him work on what he want to work on. But there should be a reward for the one who takes initiative, that's what bring enthousiasm. author TomT0m / talk page 19:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TomT0m: I am well aware that a long waiting time is a enthusiasm killer. That's why I stepped into property creation a couple of months ago in the first place. But IMHO that shouldn't mean that we create properties without any actual discussion. Lymantria (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: I don't want to suppress discussion realy, I just want to reverse, in some way the charge of the effort to community. Proposer deserves an answer, and it's to community to make the effort to comment. On the same spirit, in france, I think there is now a rule that if you get no answer from administration after a request, then it defaults to "your request is accepted". And indeed, community should make the effort to review and not passively reject (of course, with arguments, just a "no" is not enough and is not a real review). author TomT0m / talk page 08:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TomT0m: I am well aware that a long waiting time is a enthusiasm killer. That's why I stepped into property creation a couple of months ago in the first place. But IMHO that shouldn't mean that we create properties without any actual discussion. Lymantria (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: From my experience, having to wait a long time beetween a proposal and its creation is an enthusiasm killer, really. Especially if you feel alone on your interest. My position is to trust the proposer : either we have something to do like "this property is redundant, just do like this / this clearly breaks WMF policies / whatever", so that he can work on whatever he want, or we let him work on what he want to work on. But there should be a reward for the one who takes initiative, that's what bring enthousiasm. author TomT0m / talk page 19:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- ??? It's the cruft that is making the life of volunteers harder, as I explained. I agree that not all hardly used properties are cruft, your describe a way of use that isn't. But I propose nothing yet, apart from that I want to wait some more time than a week if there has not been any reaction to a proposal, as I expect that eventually at least one person apart from the proposer shares his or her opinion before I create a property - but even that is not really a proposal. It is hardly making lifes of volunteers harder. But still, I think that a lot of properties are frustratingly low used, and it would not ask much of anybody to think of what we can do to gain enthusiast participation. If you say that thinking "will just restrict our modelling power", I really don't understand that. Lymantria (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- "proposal/discussion" can be taken to mean "proposal and discussion". It can mean "proposal or discussion". It can even mean "proposal and/or discussion". This is not my opinion, but unequivocal fact. We refer to the existence of such potential alternative meanings as "ambiguity". That you or anyone else take one meaning, and I reasonably take another, or am unclear as to which is meant, is further evidence of that ambiguity. Given that ambiguity, in particular the second of my three examples, it is not correct to say that "discussion is required". Since the ambiguity I illustrate is in the policy, the claim that a discussion is required is not supported by that policy. Given that a property proposed and supported only by one person may be well used, and a property supported by several may be little used, the level of usage is a red herring in a discussion of what the current policy means. That you are "fed up" by having these issues pointed out by me is unfortunate, but does not negate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much ambiguous about "proposal/discussion". But even if there is, you can IMHO not derive from it that "Your claim that a discussion is required is not supported by the policy". I don't agree that unused properties are a red herring. I noticed it is annoying to quite a few people. What are we creating, maintaining, etc., properties for if they are not used? Why do I have to scroll through 3000+ property names to see if I can find what I want, if 10-20% is cruft? Okay, indeed, a couple of the unused properties above are qualifiers, but still, many properties are not or hardly used. And if they are used 2 or 3 times, still it is pretty useless. Recently I raised the number of uses of EU Transparency Register ID (P2657) from 1 to 11. Still I thought, what's the use of it? Proposer and supporter didn't care much, it seems. So, red herring? I think we have to look for a way to be sure that a property is used with some enthousiasm.
- [ec] The former is not a policy page. The latter is headed "This page is a work in progress, not an article or policy, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.". I'd be most surprised to learn that nl.Wikipedia requires each edit to be discussed before it is made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Talking about straw men... I'd be very surprised if at enwiki consensus checks - e.g. votes, proposals - would never have a quorum. Lymantria (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that is indeed a straw man, because that's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I meant of course you were strawmenning yourself. Lymantria (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then you are wrong, because that's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- What you said about nlwiki was a straw man as well. Minutes later you accused another user of using a straw man. Lymantria (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then you are wrong, because that's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I meant of course you were strawmenning yourself. Lymantria (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that is indeed a straw man, because that's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Talking about straw men... I'd be very surprised if at enwiki consensus checks - e.g. votes, proposals - would never have a quorum. Lymantria (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- +1 with Lymantria:
- @Pigsonthewing: But read Wikidata:Property proposal or Help:Properties: "Before a new property is created, it has to be discussed here. When after some time there are some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created by a property creator or an administrator." That is quite in line with my interpretation of consensus on a proposal. And that is not at all in conflict with en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (while, other than you suggest, this is not the basis of all wikimedia projects, for instance nl:Wikipedia:Consensus has a different angle), while from the silence it is not clear whether the readers but not reactors prefer the status quo (no new property) or change (new property). So consensus on...?? Therefore input is a necessity. Lymantria (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: I'd interpret the fact that nobody has something to say as a sign of "tacit consensus". It would encourage initiative on Wikidata (after a certain amount of time) : if somebody is opposed because he's in favor of another way of doing the same thing, or he thinks this should not be done, he/she has to react. The person who tries something should be favored over the one who tacitely oppose. This seems a reasonable thing to do as we don't have a lot of comments on property proposals. author TomT0m / talk page 12:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- As noted above, I have created Wikidata:Property proposal/Attention needed to track (hopefully in future with the aid of a bot) those proposals that need more input. Hopefully this will reduce the instances of cases like this where there is little reaction. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this will work. We will have the same pool of commenters who have probably not commented because they are not interested. Then maybe some will get up and vote, but how relevant and motivated can be the opinion of someone who is not interested ? This will help the proposer or left him frustrated ? author TomT0m / talk page 16:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It may or may not, but I don't think that there will be any harm in trying it. I commented on a few while I was compiling the list for example. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I still approve this as I think this is useful ;) I just don't think it's a game changer. author TomT0m / talk page 17:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It may or may not, but I don't think that there will be any harm in trying it. I commented on a few while I was compiling the list for example. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this will work. We will have the same pool of commenters who have probably not commented because they are not interested. Then maybe some will get up and vote, but how relevant and motivated can be the opinion of someone who is not interested ? This will help the proposer or left him frustrated ? author TomT0m / talk page 16:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
458 BC
Just before I do them all wrong. Do I have to enter "458 BCE" or "457 BCE" for the year 458 on Q309637#P39 ?
Please read https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T129823 before commenting.
--- Jura 21:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikidata's data model at [2]. Notice there is a year zero, so, for example, this edit made August 3 stores the date internally as
Timestamp −0439-00-00T00:00:00Z Timezone +00:00 Calendar Julian Precision 1 year Before 0 years After 0 years
- But the user interface displays the date as 439 BCE. Thus the user interface contradicts the data model and needs to be repaired. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The following query uses these:
- Items: Cincinnatus (Q309637)
- Properties: position held (P39)
, point in time (P585)
SELECT * { VALUES ?item { wd:Q309637 } ?item p:P39 ?p1 . ?p1 pqv:P585 ?p3 . ?p3 ?p4 ?p5 } LIMIT 100
Above shows how it appears on WQS.
Can I conclude the following:
- "458 BC" should be entered as "458 BCE"
- When querying the data, one should be aware that the year is off by one.
- Some years may be off by one?
To figure out which ones can be relied on, can we add a qualifier P1480 with an item value "may be off by 1 year" to existing values? If the date is already in a qualifier, the qualifier should be applied to the main statement. If date precision is less than 9 (e.g. decades), this isn't needed.
--- Jura 14:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The following query uses these:
- Properties: date of death (P570)
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?date ?prec { ?item p:P570/psv:P570 ?d_node . ?d_node wikibase:timePrecision ?prec . ?d_node wikibase:timeValue ?date . FILTER (year(?date) < 1 && ?prec > 8) SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } } ORDER BY DESC(?date) LIMIT 5000
Looking at a few on the above list, I don't think (3) is needed. Maybe there is an easy way to cross-check it. @NavinoEvans: might want to comment.
--- Jura 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jura1 asked in part
- Can I conclude the following:
- "458 BC" should be entered as "458 BCE"
- Can I conclude the following:
- I regard the user interface as only one way to read and write data into the database. Other methods might follow the above-mentioned data model. To use the broken user interface to enter correct (that is, obedient to the data model) data into the database, one would have to enter "457 BC", "457 BCE", or "-457" into the user interface. The broken user interface will display the incorrect value "457 BCE" after the data is stored. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- At least on wikidata.org, dates are rendered as entered. 458 BC appears as 458 BCE. For Q156778#P570:
{{#property:P570|from=Q156778}}
gives 14 September 9 BCE.
--- Jura 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- At least on wikidata.org, dates are rendered as entered. 458 BC appears as 458 BCE. For Q156778#P570:
- Yes, but an equally valid way to retrieve the data is to use your favorite browser to visit
- Part of the result will be
- "P570":[{"mainsnak":{"snaktype":"value","property":"P570","datavalue":{"value":{"time":"-0009-09-14T00:00:00Z"
- So a person going by the data model would interpret this as 10 BCE. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- At least for rdf, it works:
- mw:Wikibase/Indexing/RDF_Dump_Format#Time mentions "The dates follow XSD 1.1 standard, i.e. 1 BCE is year 0."
- and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityData/Q156778.rdf has
<wdt:P570 rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">-0008-09-14T00:00:00Z</wdt:P570>
.
--- Jura 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- At least for rdf, it works:
- I think the various developers have no common ground and every date before the year AD 1 is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong or not, at least, we seem to follow the definition provided. I added a section at Help:Dates#Years_BC
--- Jura 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)- If we presume the stored value represent a notation that includes the year zero, like the data model says, and that the value in the RDF notation also follows a notation that includes the year zero, then the software that outputs the value shouldn't add one to negative values. It would be interesting to put the year -1 into a sandbox value and see what the RDF output is. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):: Can you confirm that "There is a year number 0 that refers to the year that is commonly called 1 BC(E)." [3] is relevant now relevant mainly for RDF. This was added in 2014 by @Christopher Johnson (WMDE):[4]. As of now, we should understand this per https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Dates&oldid=361752708#Years_BC . Interestingly, both year 0 and year 1 BC appear as
<ps:P585 rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">0000-01-01T00:00:00Z</ps:P585>
in rdf (Q13406268), so we could use either for year 1 BC, but year 2 BC should be entered as 2 BCE.
--- Jura 22:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):: Can you confirm that "There is a year number 0 that refers to the year that is commonly called 1 BC(E)." [3] is relevant now relevant mainly for RDF. This was added in 2014 by @Christopher Johnson (WMDE):[4]. As of now, we should understand this per https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Dates&oldid=361752708#Years_BC . Interestingly, both year 0 and year 1 BC appear as
- Just note that RDF date rendering is completely different code than Wikidata GUI date parsing/rendering (and that is also different from JSON export). That said, RDF code does follow XSD 1.1, and it has year 0 which is a year preceding 1 AD, i.e. 1 BCE. I'm pretty sure JSON follows the same. It is a good idea to check on test.wikidata.org (it runs the same code as main site, excepting very recent changes but we didn't change much in that area for some time) to ensure you're getting what you wanted, by looking at Special:EntityData/QQQQ.rdf and Special:EntityData/QQQQ.json. If you notice something you don't think works as it should be, ping one of the devs, e.g. myself. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Smalyshev (WMF): As the discussion above shows, for Nero Claudius Drusus (Q156778) and P570 (death date) the JSON and RDF give different results, "-0009-09-14T00:00:00Z" and "-0008-09-14T00:00:00Z" respectively. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, Horace (Q6197)—who died 27 November 8 BCE of the Julian calendar—might be a better example, because it is easier to find online citations for this date.[5] Jc3s5h (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
DuplicateReferences
Looks like the DuplicateReferences-Gadget have some problems? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- What problems? Some of them may already be tracked... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Matěj Suchánek: I cannot copy-paste references today! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't you forget that it's Thursday – the day when things break on Wikidata?
- @Adrian Heine (WMDE), Jonas Kress (WMDE), Aude: Could you look at this (MediaWiki:Gadget-DuplicateReferences.js)? The problem is that saving an already copied reference does not work. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are only seven such days in the week, so they are hard to miss!
-- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are only seven such days in the week, so they are hard to miss!
- @Matěj Suchánek: I cannot copy-paste references today! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It is a very useful gadget. Why is having so many problems? Xaris333 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Because it is a gadget. Although gadgets are considered the most stable among optional scripts, still they are not part of the software and may fail on any change of it. In particular, this gadget is hacking the UI which changes really often. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like it is fixed for now. Many thanks, whoever did it! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
WQS query expired
Using the 'HarvestTemplates' tool. I'm getting a "WQS query expired" error. What does that mean, and can I do anything to remedy it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Could you provide the permalink for your job? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Where would I find that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot that it's only shown when you have already some pages loaded. To work around this, could you just load a random job and then add the correct input? After that, the permalink is located just above the pages to run the job on. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Where would I find that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The job:
just gave me that error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Loaded for me (148 pages), even the same query as HT runs. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- But not for me (I've tried using an alternative account, too); and the latter query just hangs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Rfd links template
{{Rfd links}}
would be greatly improved if it displayed the label of the item or property under discussion (see its use in most sections of Wikidata:Properties for deletion, for example). I requested this on its talk page some time ago, but no-one has responded, Can anyone oblige, please? It's beyond my template skills to do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I endorse this request and was thinking something very similar after my faux pas the other day at properties for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- If having labels in the headers of that page is what you want to achieve, shouldn't we rather modify the gadget? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I modified the template to show labels of properties (and furthermore, added some i18n love), not items because I am afraid that it would produce red error message on long archived Rfd's. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. For properties, that's just what's needed; Wikidata:Properties for deletion is much easier to follow. However, there is still a lack of clarity on Wikidata:Requests for deletions. I'd be less worried about archived RfDs, but you could always make it not show a label, or show the string "[item deleted]" in such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I modified the template to show labels of properties (and furthermore, added some i18n love), not items because I am afraid that it would produce red error message on long archived Rfd's. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
importing data on journalists killed in the exercise of their profession
Hi all
UNESCO produces a report of journalists killed 'in the exercise of their profession', what would be the best way of expressing this within their Wikidata items? There is information on the year and the country of their death, their nationalities and a link to a statement by UNESCO on their deaths (this often because they have been murdered).
Many thanks
--John Cummings (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @John Cummings: The solution to this will probably be wider than just for journalists: consider police killed 'in the exercise of their profession', or teachers, ditto. I've created an item, killed in the exercise of their profession (Q26216011); apply that as a value for
cause of death (P509)manner of death (P1196). I've done that on Veronica Guerin (Q237541), for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)- Great, thanks very much Andy, do you know how I would add links to the UNESCO statements about their deaths? Here's an example. John Cummings (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @John Cummings: Correction: Apply as manner of death (P1196). For links to statements, use them as refs or qualify with described at URL (P973). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Great, thanks very much Andy, do you know how I would add links to the UNESCO statements about their deaths? Here's an example. John Cummings (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to mention it: killed in the exercise of their profession (Q26216011) includes all mercenary (Q178197). --Succu (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Only those who were killed in action. Not those who died of natural causes, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sure but died Pierre Curie (Q37463) while he was thinking about something related to his profession? Such statements need a source and a clear circumscription. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the original post in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm referring to this edit and your creation of killed in the exercise of their profession (Q26216011). How knows? --Succu (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the original post in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sure but died Pierre Curie (Q37463) while he was thinking about something related to his profession? Such statements need a source and a clear circumscription. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much Andy, I think described at URL (P973) would work well, I'll set up a spreadsheet for Mix n' Match. --John Cummings (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: didn't you meant reference URL (P854) instead of described at URL (P973)? --Edgars2007 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote "use them as refs or qualify with described at URL (P973)"; and that's what I meant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: didn't you meant reference URL (P854) instead of described at URL (P973)? --Edgars2007 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Schools
Wikiversity has Schools such as v:School:Chemistry. How should these be entered here?
For example, here there is 'School of Chemistry, University of Manchester (Q18355971)'. Based on this I could create a new item: 'School of Chemistry, Wikiversity (Qmanydigits)' for which we would have nine language versions here. Or I could duplicate the Wikiversity version here as 'School:Chemistry (Qmanydigits)'. Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Marshallsumter: That Wikiversity page is currently linked to chemistry (Q2329). The Wikiversity page v:Chemistry is an orphan item at chemistry (Q25931548). I would have expected that to be the other away around, and for main subject (P921) to be involved. I've also just created Wikiversity school (Q26215754), which can be used as the value of instance of (P31) for such schools. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I've solved part of this. I changed chemistry (Q25931548) to be 'Template:Chemistry resources', then put v:Chemistry with chemistry (Q2329). We also have here, e.g., 'School of Psychology, University of Glasgow' which also suggests 'School of Chemistry, Wikiversity'. --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Marshallsumter: That's not good. Please don't re-purpose items, as you did at Q25931548. I've now merged that with Q2329. please create a new item for the template. And that still leaves you with no item for v:School:Chemistry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Sorry about Q25931548, we actually may not have anything for this, but I like your idea with it! Do you have an opinion on either 'School of Chemistry, Wikiversity' or 'School:Chemistry' with the nine Wikiversity versions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Marshallsumter: That's not good. Please don't re-purpose items, as you did at Q25931548. I've now merged that with Q2329. please create a new item for the template. And that still leaves you with no item for v:School:Chemistry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I've solved part of this. I changed chemistry (Q25931548) to be 'Template:Chemistry resources', then put v:Chemistry with chemistry (Q2329). We also have here, e.g., 'School of Psychology, University of Glasgow' which also suggests 'School of Chemistry, Wikiversity'. --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this daft?
Lisp.hippie.bot is busy adding "area occupied" claims to items such as cities in square meters, instead of the usual, sensible, square kilometer or mile. Danrok (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is now under discussion, at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Should this bot be stopped?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Most active Wikidata users (TOOL)
A short time ago a tool was linked from here, which was able to display the most active users for every property. I couldn't find it again. May you please help me?--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Copy reference tool
The copy reference tool is not working. Xaris333 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- See #DuplicateReferences above! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Qualifiers for bounds, empirical values, and regulated values
Consider a class of physical entities with a Wikidata item. The entity class has properties minimum mass, which is regulated by some set of rules, and typical length, which is not regulated, but there is good knowledge about empirical values which furthermore do not vary much.
It would be easy to use mass (P2067) (±0) and length (P2043) (± range of empirical values) now, but how to qualify the restrictions given above? Usage of qualifiers would be great to my knowledge, but I have no idea how to say that …
- … the mass is actually a lower bound
- … the length is an empirical value
- … the former is regulated (by whom?), while the latter is explicitly not regulated
Any ideas? Thanks in advance! —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is helpful, but we have uncertainty corresponds to (P2571) as a qualifier that was intended to describe the uncertainty bounds on a quantity value. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Q18201640 and Property:P402: linking to OSM
I tried to fix a bad OSM link, the number actually was the monument's node id, not a relation id. As Wikidata only supports OSM relations to link to, I created a OSM relation containing only the monument. This was (understandably) not appreciated. So, I see no way of linking the Wikipedia monument to OSM. --Krukrus (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the changeset discussion, the proper solution is to add a wikidata=* tag to the OSM node. —seav (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I got that. But that recommended solution makes Property:P402 rather obsolete. I'm counting roughly 20.000 wikidata items using P402, so this is actually not a big issue, but I assume it should be tackled not to let others fall in the same trap wanting to link to OSM rather than from. --Krukrus (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- See Property talk:P402#Deletion request and the discussions to which it links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I got that. But that recommended solution makes Property:P402 rather obsolete. I'm counting roughly 20.000 wikidata items using P402, so this is actually not a big issue, but I assume it should be tackled not to let others fall in the same trap wanting to link to OSM rather than from. --Krukrus (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Country Index
There is data such as the Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparncy international or the Good Country Index that would be valuable to integrate as data into Wikidata. On the other hand it seems to me like it wouldn't be good to create a new property for every index that exists and list that property at the item of the respective countries. How do you think Wikidat should deal with information like this?
The same goes for various laws like that differ per country like the age of consent. There are many laws that could be listed and maybe a property isn't the best way to go as that would make the pages of the respective countries very long. ChristianKl (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think continuously updated properties are probably the largest threat when it comes to the length (or rather size) of pages. I proposed in the early days of Wikidata that we could put such data in special designed sub-items to the main items. When it comes to exchange rates for currencies, that is maybe already implemented. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikidata!
Hi folks!
My name is Glorian Yapinus, but you can simply call me Glorian ;) . For the next 6 months, I will assist Lydia in supporting you all. Regarding to my educational background, I hold a bachelor's degree in Information Technology and currently, I am working on my Master's in Software Engineering and Management.
I am a warm and nice person. So, please do not hesitate to reach out to me for any queries. Last but not least, I am looking forward to working with you.
Cheers, --Glorian Yapinus (WMDE) (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome! Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to wikidata, I'm glad Lydia has some help!! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Modeling types
Hello. Could you, please, explain me, or better give a link to help page, what is (if at all) the functionality of Wikidata modeling? For example, a, is instance of some b, which is a subclass of some another c. Does it mean that properties of c are inherited to b? Does it mean that a has values of fields that are defined in b? Or all of these are just symbols for classification, with no semantics? Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sure - see Help:Modelling and Help:Basic Membership Properties for starters. These are not however official policies, and still under development. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Rio Olympics opening ceremony
Here is a thematic query with size of all teams and flag bearers tonight. Not all countries have been set with flagbearer yet, though... --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)