Wikidata

Wikidata:Project chat

Latest comment: 10 hours ago by Prototyperspective in topic Importing WP & WMC categories into Wikidata

Edit

Undoing a batch

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I made a mistake for the batch https://editgroups.toolforge.org/b/QSv2/238496/ and when I try to undo it, I get a "Server Error (500)". Is there a way to get the batch undoing working? Is it generally broken? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I don't get my OAUTH working for EditGroups. --Lymantria (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl: It looks like your batch is only missing qualifiers. You can just run QuickStatements again and it will add the qualifiers to the values (no need to remove the values first). Dexxor (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately not, the problem is that some of the qualifiers were wrong. I pulled down to copy value and it counted the property numbers for the qualifiers up (some errors that result in no data but also a bunch of wrong data). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see. You could make a new batch that removes values with bad qualifiers and re-adds them with the right qualifiers (aka using QuickStatements as a poor man's undo batch button). Dexxor (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl: I have recently done some maintenance work on this tool, but more work would be needed to make it work reliably. I also get a HTTP 500 error when trying to log in, so I can see it is indeed broken. I notice that my motivation to maintain this tool is dwindling. I have added a banner to the tool, pointing to a new Phabricator task to request help. As much as I see that this tool continues to fulfill an important need in the community, I continue to think that its architecture isn't fit for purpose on the long term (see this list of problems I mentioned 5 years ago). I am happy to see that with the advent of Wikibase.Cloud (where EditGroups isn't available), Wikimedia Deutschland has started to hear voices from users who struggle with undoing imports on Wikibase.Cloud, and so they are considering deploying EditGroups there. This is the paradox I am confronted with: the importance of infrastructure in this area can only be visible if EditGroups isn't available. So, in a sense, if I want something reliable to appear in this space, I shouldn't maintain EditGroups. On the other hand it really pains me to see this tool broken and people struggling to do their work because of that. It also pains me to ask for more work from others. − Pintoch (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Pintoch are you planning to get it sooner or later operational again, or need I go through the manual work of undoing the badge? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl: somehow I had vague hopes that with my explanation of how uncomfortable the situation is for me, it would prompt some expression of empathy, appreciation or understanding, which would motivate me again to work on this. But I forgot that those aren't really part of the social norms here - sorry about this inappropriate outpour of emotions. I thank you for expressing your needs directly. I am impressed by your tireless work on Wikidata, so I want to help you and have spent a few hours trying to debug this. Logging in to EditGroups works again on my side - there are surely many other things still broken, but I hope you at least appreciate this small present to you. − Pintoch (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
When you explained the problem, I'm not sure whether trying to motivate you is the best. It might be better if WMDE takes over EditGroups and generally couples the function more tightly with Wikibase. I did write one message in the Telegram Wikidata saying "EditGroups seems broken right now and seems like a key tool. Pintoch seems unclear about whether he wants to continue to support it. Is this key functionality that would be better to be developed by WMDE?"
That said, thank you for fixing it. I could login and undo the batch. So do appreciate the work you put into EditGroups and feel like I understand your dilemma. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notability of items sourced purely to a Wiki Loves Monuments ID

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago21 comments5 people in discussion

A couple of weeks ago I had nominated some items for gravestone for deletion that were linked nothing to else but a Wiki Loves Monuments ID. Since there's nothing in Wikidata:Notability or the original proposal for the property saying that it is an indicator of notability. Which would make sense considering Wiki Loves Monuments IDs are user generated and based purely on the existence of said monument.

@Multichill: Subsequently closed all the deletion requests as keep because Wiki Loves Monuments is supposedly a well established criterion for notability and then they threatened to block me if I renominated the items for deletion. Which, aside from just coming off like bad faithed bullying, really doesn't make much sense. So does anyone besides @Multichill: know if Wiki Loves Monuments IDs are an indicator of notability or know of any past discussions about it? Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A WLM id usually means an item has been named in an official heritage register, that may not be available online. So if a WLM id exists, it's probably best to start from the assumption that the item probably is notable, unless there are any very clear reasons to think otherwise. Also, consider that removing items from the WLM list here is disruptive to a high-profile project, and may affect Wikipedia pages that automatically draw on the list here.
Looking at consequences, it would seem to me that the downside of including an item here that may not be notable is rather less that the downside of not including an item here that is notable. There is also the question of removing other people's work; and affecting images on Commons that may refer to the item here.
For all these reasons, I would suggest to be disposed to tread very softly in respect of items that have a WLM id. If there is a group of items that you think should not be included, it probably makes sense in the first place to take it up with the national group that put together the WLM list for that country. I would strongly advice that any deletion request here should not be made unless it has been cleared and approved by that group first. Best regards, Jheald (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
A WLM id usually means an item has been named in an official heritage register @Jheald: From what I understand that's not actually the case. Supposedly one of the reasons there's Wiki Loves Monuments IDs in the first place is because there's a lot of monuments that aren't in official government databases. So the IDs serve to fill in the gaps. Which makes since because there's be no point in the IDs to begin with otherwise. I know that's the case at least with monuments in Ukraine and Russia though. There's a lot of monuments in both countries that aren't in official databases that Wiki Loves Monuments has IDs for.
May affect Wikipedia pages that automatically draw on the list here. All of the items that I nominated for deletion weren't connected to other projects. Let alone where they notable enough to have Wikipedia articles or anything like that. Same goes for there being images for them on Commons. None of them did. So I don't really see how them being deleted would be disruptive or have an effect on anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Afaik, the least currently of Wiki Loves Monuments ID is that it could be used in external tools. For example Wikimedia Commons app (Q12528989) and https://app.wikilovesmonuments.it uses it. More globally the Monuments database would transition to use Wikidata as backend. The reason for using single property instead of multiple ones is that in software development point of view it is overly complex to manage rules for multiple different properties. There are is also SPARQL performance reasons why one will want to keep the number of properties smaller. --Zache (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Generally, the interpretation of what we see as falling under our notability policy gets decided over at deletion requests and some discussions about undeletion of items that happen elsewhere. Simply, renominating items after you see that a category of items get decide to be kept at Request of Deletion causes unnecessary work and is disruptive.
It's worth noting that our policies speak of "can be described using serious and publicly available references" and not "are described using serious and publicly available references", so the absence of references on an item is not in itself a reason why the item is not notable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl: I totally agree that something's notability should be decided over at deletion requests. The problem is that Multichill unilaterally closed the deletion requests as keep when I had just opened them and there was no discussion. Otherwise I would have been more then happy to not start this conversation and let the normal process play out. You can't have it both ways where it's disruptive to renominate an item for deletion but then it's totally fine for admins to unliterally close DRs after a couple days based on their own personal opinions and regardless if there's been any discussion about it though.
I could ultimately care less if items for monuments that are actually notable exit on here. The problem is that Multichill made a blanket pronouncement that every monument with a Wiki Loves Monuments ID is de-facto notable and then unliterally steamrolled any sort of discussion about it. At least IMO it's totally valid to renominate said items for deletion in an instance like that. Any disruption or extra work it might cause is totally on Multichill for unliterally closing the DRs out of process. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey all, I'm one of the folks who create items for component parts of monuments that lack references or monuments that lack references, usually in Brazil. I believe a low percentage of listed monuments in Brazil even have a Wikidata item -- which I know from experience. And certainly not any references. I've visited the regional federal offices for listed monuments (IPHAN) to locate the monuments of a region, and there's a lack of documentation at all levels of government--federal, state, and municipal. WMB is actively collecting sources at all levels of government and academia, but it's very time consuming, or the references exist in documents that are rare or lost.
I think the context of the regions we're working with on Wiki Loves Monuments is important. Can I request that folks take a pause on deleting monuments, or components of monuments? Creating an item with no references is an interesting process, because putting the cart (the item) before the horse (references) puts you on the lookout for the references themselves! I often find highly detailed information signs, but I consider them within copyright so I don't upload them.
Most importantly, thank you all for your work on monuments in Wikidata. You're contributing to an architectural inventory that does not exist elsewhere for individual countries or even regions, and in practice does it contribute to the survival and/or preservation of these works? It sure does! Prburley (talk)
Putting the cart (the item) before the horse (references) puts you on the lookout for the references themselves! It really doesn't though. The items just stay unreferenced for years and then they can't be deleted because people like Multichill and ChristianKl complain about how doing DRs for unsourced items cause extra work or whatever. Regardless, it's ridiculous to create a bunch of unreferenced items purely because you think sources might exist for them and/or you plan on adding them later at some point in the future. Wikidata:Notability might as well not even exist at that point. But hey, screw the notability guidelines because nominating the items for deletion causes extra work though. Sounds like a great way to run a website. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata:Notability does not say that items staying unreferenced for years is a problem. It just doesn't.
Wikidata is not run so with the intention of work of well intentioned contributors get deleted but so that a lot of different people can contribute to Wikidata.
The spirit of deletionism isn't healthy for Wikipedia either and we don't need it on Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl: I mean, realistically there are serious usability problems on both projects that are caused by being to inclusionist. With Wikidata specifically the main reason I got into this was because there was an item for the fictional city of New York that was being automatically added to items instead of the actual city. Otherwise I could really care less, but I don't think your handwaving about how a lot of different people can contribute to the project should necessarily come at the cost of being able to do basic things like add a location to an item. Maybe that's just me though.
I originally asked the question so I wouldn't needlessly be nominating similar items for deletion in the future if monuments with Wiki Loves Monuments IDs were in fact notable. I know admins are their own special kind of fragile, but I do find you calling me a deletionist just because I asked a question about the guidelines rather patronizing. I'm sorry if this whole thing upset you that much, but there's no reason to insult me over it. I wasn't planning on nominating any more unsourced items for deletion anyway. It was just something I thought was worth clarifying. That's all. Have fun degrading usability of the site though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
My opinion is that the goal is to move national Wiki Loves Monuments databases to Wikidata. To achieve this, detailed Wikidata items are necessary, either because they are notable in their own right or because they are part of larger notable objects. For example, they could be buildings located on an island that is protected as a whole. This is why these items are needed and should not be deleted. --Zache (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have a problem with "detailed Wikidata items" for the monuments. The problem is that they inherently can't be detailed if they are unsourced. There's certainly monuments with IDs out there that are detailed though, but that's not what I'm talking about. The problem comes in where there's a years old, unsourced item for a monument that has no other information except the location, name (which is usually made up to begin with), and a Wiki Loves Monuments ID.
I've certainly added more information to a few them myself, but at the end of day the responsibility for doing that should be on the original creator of the item and it should be done when the item is created. Not 12 years later by a random passerby. Just like with any other thing on here. I highly doubt the same standard would apply for anything else. I've certainly seen unsourced items for people, movies, locations, Etc. Etc. deleted before. Monuments just seem to get special pass for some reason. I have my suspicions as to why, but their clearly treated differently. I'm sure this whole thing would have gone a lot different if this it was about something else besides monuments. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are a lot of things in the location data category in which validity you can confirm just by walking to it. --Zache (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but no one does it. i didn't know personal experience was a valid source anyway though. Clearly the bar for notability and sourcing has been lowered essentially to non-existence since I signed up. That's on me thinking there were still some kind of standards on here. As long as someone had a dream about it once, whatever. As long as different people can contribute to the project right? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another identfier for monuments or heritage designation (P1435) should be enough in most cases; the source could be a reference URL or stated in (P248). With people there is an additional policy (Wikidata:Living people), and the deleted items often only have user-generated identifiers. People and films are also typical subjects for hoaxes. Peter James (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ChristianKl: In your opinion would it be OK for someone to create an item that was sourced purely to unsubstantiated information from a Wikipedia article? Also how long do you think unsourced information should stay on here or is "indefinitely" totally fine? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata items are the best way that Wikipedia articles have sitelinks under each other and thus we allow Wikidata items without any statements provided they have links to Wikipedia articles. Generally, the more statements providing true information the better, even if that information is not referenced. That's the general Wikidata operates. There are some exceptions for property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) where I would consider it reasonable to remove unsourced information. In particular I would support removing unsourced ethnic group (P172) statements (which we currently don't and we have a lot that are a decade old).
Generally, I think the best way to have more and better data, is to make it easy for people to add more and better data. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl: I could probably could have been clearer about it but I wasn't asking about sitelinks. What I mean is using a fact from a Wikipedia article as a reference for a statement. For instance using a Wikipedia article as a reference that a family member is related to someone or the date of an event. Not basing an item on the existence of there being a Wikipedia article having to do with the subject in the first place. Like say for John Nopel (Q130569454), assuming there was a Wikipedia article mentioning John Nopel was a historian would it be OK to use that as a reference for his occupation? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there's no issue with that given that John Nopel is dead (and thus not subject to Wikidata:Living people). If he would be alive the matter would be more complicated. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ChristianKl: OK. Thanks for the explanation and conversation even though we clearly disagree about it. One more thing if you'll humor me, I know you say items for monuments don't need to be sourced to anything, but with an item like Q122726374 the whole justification for it seems to be that the statue is a "monument of monumental art of Ukraine of local importance." Otherwise the kind of seems pointless. Yet heritage designation (P1435) clearly requires a reference, which the statement doesn't have. That goes for most of items based on Wiki Loves Monuments IDs. Also, Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) clearly requires a coordinate location. Which again, most items based on Wiki Loves Monuments IDs don't have. So do you advocate for ignoring the requirements? Or should something that explicitly requires a source probably have one? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If the P1435 is correct, according to uk:Пам'ятка монументального мистецтва it should be in the State Register of Immovable Monuments of Ukraine. It's in Vinnytsia Oblast, so the relevant list for monuments of local importance https://mcsc.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/vinnyczka_obl__stanom_na15.04.2024.pdf or https://mcsc.gov.ua/files/pdf/Nacional_znachenia/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB..pdf if it's of national importance; there is also a list of monuments removed from the register for reasons related to decommunization and derussification: https://mcsc.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024.10.22-perelik-po-dekomunizacziyi.pdf. It's in uk:Вікі любить пам'ятки/Вінницька область/Тульчинський район/Тульчинська громада but I could not find it in the references there so it could be in the register under another name, or have been removed from the register for another reason, or the P1435 could be a mistake - that Ukrainian Wikipedia list, which is only for part of the oblast, is much longer than I would expect it to be. Peter James (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Peter James: A lot of the names for the monuments are totally made up on our end to begin with. So I doubt you'd be able to find them in an official register even if they are there to begin with. Although several people associated with Wiki Loves Monuments have said that they include more monuments then the official registers. Which is sort of the problem here. Not every non-notable "monument" or whatever in existence should have a Wikidata item. Yet that's essentially what this whole thing sets up. Essentially every gravestone in Ukraine can have a Wikidata item simply because there's a Wiki Loves Monuments ID for it regardless of if it's included in a notional or local register, if the person is notable, or really anything else purely "because Wiki Loves Monuments ID." I guess it is what it is though since that seems to the standard people like ChristianKl want on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

VIAF dumps?

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! Does anybody know anything about the VIAF dumps available at https://viaf.org/viaf/data/ The last one is from August. I am using those dumps since about 6 years and there was a new dump every month, but now there are two month missing? Last weekend I wrote a mail and asked, usually there is an answer on the next day, but I got no answer? --Wurgl (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Linda.jansova Do you happen to have any information about this, Linda? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wurgl, @Vojtěch Dostál Unfortunately, I do not have that kind of information but I have just send a question to OCLC myself. So perhaps we will eventually find out :-). Linda.jansova (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! --Wurgl (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

ProVe, a new tool to help with the quality of references

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks to all of you you have so far tried ProVe, the new tool for checking the quality of references in Wikidata. It's greatly appreciated :-) (link to the archived discussion here).

@samoasambia thanks for your suggestions! We are updating the script import instructions in the documentation to avoid copy-pasting code, great idea. We're also adding ProVe to the tools catalog. Thanks for your help!

@Huntster thanks for letting us know, this was a bug. It's now been fixed, if you could try again and let us know if the new version works that would be great! Thanks

Just as a reminder for everyone else, ProVe provides information about the quality of the references of Wikidata items, based on techniques like large language models, triple verbalisation, and semantic similairty. We have also developed the **ProVe Gadget**, which visually presents ProVe's results as a widget at the top of a Wikidata item page. Any Wikidata user can easily turn this gadget on, see here for install instructions. You can use it to request the processing of references, showing reference scores, navigating problematic references, and quickly fix them with better ones.

If you're curious about this we'd greatly appreciate your feedback! :-) Albert.meronyo (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to use it, should be a useful thing, thanks. For some reason, the gadget does not analyse web.archive.org correctly and is unable to 'read' the text from the web archive. So, it says about it 'Sentence in external URL to be checked, possibly not authoritative'. --Wolverène (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I think we may have to do additional checks to read text from the web archive, indeed. What item are you trying to analyse? Thanks for using ProVe! Albert.meronyo (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, e.g. Q23648408. (It is also listing IGN there as not authoritative although this is quite a well-known video games-related media with the serious team...) --Wolverène (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! We're looking into this Albert.meronyo (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Wolverène, thank you very much for your input. I've reviewed the issues you mentioned. First, accessing web.archive.org takes a considerable amount of time, roughly 1–2 minutes. The current web crawler engine on the backend is set to wait 15 seconds per URL to prevent overloading the web crawling process. Second, certain web servers, such as IGN, may deny access to their pages by the web crawler to protect their rights. Due to this access policy, the tool is unable to access IGN pages automatically. Dignityc (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see. Thank you. --Wolverène (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMDB

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hello all,

The links for IMDb ID (P345) not working. Trivialist added this prefix to the link - https://wikidata-externalid-url.toolforge.org . I don't understand what that means and anyway the links does not working with that prefix. Geagea (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The prefixes differ per type, so we use a volunteer tool to convert them (and have been for years). It seems like the tool is offline though, @ArthurPSmith, can you check? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
We already have the different prefixes in formatter URL (P1630) of IMDb ID (P345), can't we use those directly instead of using the tool? -- Agabi10 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Geagea: Yeah, looks like it crashed yesterday - sorry to be slow noticing. It's been a year since the last restarr; it seems to be working now. Maybe I should schedule more frequent restarts... ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ArthurPSmith, now working thanks. Geagea (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is IMDb considered a reliable source for wikidata? I am pretty sure it’s not considered reliable for Wikipedia.Masai giraffe (talk) 06:33 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is being used as an identifier rather than a source. –FlyingAce✈hello 02:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Permanent records removal

edit
Latest comment: 18 hours ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Morgan Hermand-Waiche to formally request the permanent removal of all records associated with him from your website. Mr. Hermand-Waiche believes that the presence of this information constitutes a violation of his rights, and he does not wish for any details pertaining to him to be displayed publicly. I would like to emphasize that I am connected from the company account to validate that this information is accurate. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and please note that the reference source, Who's Who, has already deleted his records. link: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20089624 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Je vous écris au nom de M. Morgan Hermand-Waiche pour demander formellement la suppression permanente de tous les dossiers le concernant de votre site web. M. Hermand-Waiche estime que la présence de ces informations constitue une violation de ses droits et il ne souhaite pas que des détails le concernant soient affichés publiquement. Je tiens à souligner que je suis connecté depuis le compte de l'entreprise pour valider que ces informations sont correctes. Nous vous remercions de l'attention portée à cette demande, et nous tenons à préciser que la source de référence, Who's Who, a déjà supprimé ses dossiers. Merci pour votre assistance rapide. Angeleml (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The French Wikipedia consider him notable enough to have a page at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Hermand-Waiche , we generally do not delete items on Wikidata if there's a Wikipedia page associated to it and even if we would delete an item with an Wikipedia page, that item would get automatically recreated.
As far as I can see the French Wikipedia does not use Who's Who has the reference for their data. If the French Wikipedia does decide to delete the article please mention it here.
Note that both Wikidata and Wikipedia are part of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you want to make a formal legal request addressed at the Wikimedia Foundation, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Legal_Affairs describes how to correspond with the legal department. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! And thanks for deleting the birth date from here as it was his most important concern. Angeleml (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Angeleml: Unfortunately, if the information is already public elsewhere in a reliable source, it will not be removed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jasper Deng: this information does not seem to be public, even if it were public, it's a personal data. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Clearly it must have been gotten from somewhere unless Hermand-Waiche added the statements himself Trade (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata editathon in Albania, 2024

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey folks, on October 30th, the Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group will organize an editathon focused on improving and creating content related to Albania and Kosovo. As this event may involve contributions from new accounts, we kindly ask for your support in monitoring our activities that day. Your guidance in addressing any mistakes or areas for improvement would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Vyolltsa (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Vyolltsa: according to
there currently are 4870 unconnected articles for sqwiki:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@M2k~dewiki Thank you! Vyolltsa (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Join the Celebration: Wikidata's 12th Birthday is Coming!

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone,

Wikidata's 12th birthday is just around the corner, and we couldn't be more excited! 🎉 Since going live on 29 October 2012, Wikidata has grown into a thriving open-source knowledge base, thanks to all of you. Every year, the Wikidata community comes together to celebrate, with events happening around the world throughout October and November 2024.

Here’s why we celebrate:

  • To acknowledge the achievements of our community
  • To bring people together
  • To introduce Wikidata to the rest of the world and bring more people onboard

Let’s make this year’s birthday celebration just as incredible! Here’s how you can take part:

Join a Wikidata Birthday Event Near You

There are already 34 events planned around the world. Whether you're looking for an in-person meetup or an online event, there’s something for everyone! Find an event near you and celebrate with fellow Wikidata enthusiasts!

Organize Your Own Celebration

There’s still time to schedule and host a birthday event with your local community. It doesn’t have to be big -- it could be a casual meetup to share birthday sweets or an introduction to Wikidata at your local library. Learn how to schedule an event and discover our communication kit to help you promote it.

Prepare a Birthday Present for Wikidata

Each year, Wikidata users prepare gifts for the community -- these can be new tools, features, or anything that brings value or joy to our volunteers. Get inspired by past birthday presents and start working on something special for this year’s celebration!

Join the Online Birthday Calls on October 29th

To mark the big day, we’re hosting two online calls on October 29th where community members can showcase their birthday presents, connect, and celebrate together. Join the online calls and be part of the global celebration!

If you have any questions about Wikidata's 12th birthday, feel free to reach out or leave a note on Wikidata talk:Twelfth Birthday.

Let’s make this birthday unforgettable! 🎉

Cheers, -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My watchlist is full?

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

TL;DR(Too Long, Didn't Read): Sorry, it's possible that the reason I got an error has nothing to do with my watchlist.

I've found that a way I can track recent changes of all(or most up til now) games that I have stumbled upon that are

compatible with
  Steam Deck edit
0 references
add reference


add value

and that have the qualifier

has characteristic
  verified edit
0 references
add reference


add value


I add these to my watchlist, then when I want to see recent changes of these items I just click on "Watchlist" in the top right between Beta and Contributions.

Am I doing this the right way? Is there a better way?

  • Is there a cap on the watchlist?
  • Does the watchlist cause a heavy strain on the service?
  • Would the watchlist cause a heavy strain on the service if a lot of users used it the way I did?

I was worried when I got an error when adding yet another item to my watchlist but it may turn out the error had nothing to do with my watchlist but maybe was some random issue with Wikidata 5-20 minutes ago. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it was an issue with the servers; I had errors trying to undo some edits. There is https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T378076 which mentions Commons, not Wikidata, but is probably related. Peter James (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If there's a cap on the Watchlist, I haven't seen it. I must have close to 100,000 items on mine (slowly paring it down though). ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Global Ban Request

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In accordance with the global ban policy ,which requires a notification to all wikis a user has edited in, I am notifying you that I have started this global ban request. I welcome any comments. Takipoint123 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Takipoint123: You forgot to post the link to the ban discussion. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oops! Thank you for letting me know. The discussion is at meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Won1017 Takipoint123 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

New property proposal: Immortal Regiment ID

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Wikidata contributors,

I've proposed a new property to link Wikidata biographies with profiles on the Immortal Regiment (Бессмертный полк) website.

This will help connect valuable historical records, photos, and personal stories contributed by veterans' descendants with our biographical data. The property would be particularly valuable for preserving and discovering unique historical information about individuals from former Soviet republics.

You can review and discuss the proposal here: Property proposal/Immortal Regiment ID

Your feedback would be greatly appreciated! 🙏 David Osipov (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Memobase ID

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there,

I have an issue with the IDs of my Portal. We aggraget Swiss AV Data in https://memobase.ch. Therfore we create Institutions (https://memobase.ch/institution/xxx example https://memobase.ch/institution/bar) match them collections (https://memobase.ch/recordSet/xxx-999 example https://memobase.ch/recordSet/bar-001) and Documents (https://memobase.ch/object/xxx-999-ID example https://memobase.ch/object/bar-001-CGS_1039-1).

It seems that there are wrong properties on the Memobase ID (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P9657).

I would like to enter the Institution and Collection ID on the wikidate (for example here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q301250)

Can anyone help me out?

Thanks Daniel (Memoriav / Memobase) Memoriav-dh (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

New property proposal: Timenote.info Person ID

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Wikidata contributors,

I've proposed a new property, Wikidata:Property proposal/Timenote.info Person ID to link Wikidata items with person profiles on the international biographical encyclopedia timenote.info (Q130484179)

This property will facilitate connections between Wikidata and timenote.info (Q130484179), enabling better discoverability of biographical information and family histories. timenote.info (Q130484179) is a multilingual resource, and this property incorporates the mandatory language of work or name (P407) qualifier to specify the language version of each profile.

You can review and discuss the proposal here: Property proposal/Timenote.info Person ID

Your feedback is highly valued! Thank you. 🙏 David Osipov (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Given name" and "disambiguation page"

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How can Abhijeet (Q4667389) be an instance of both given name (Q202444) and Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)? I presume this should be split in two, if there is not already a second related item floating around that also needs to be fixed.

Perhaps someone should run a query for items that are in both of these categories. I doubt it is the only one.

ATTN: Inter&anthro, who appears to be the one who added given name (Q202444), making what appears to me to have been a bad merge. - Jmabel (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first sitelink was originally a disambiguation page but was made into a page about the name; the disambiguation page has now been split to Abhijit (Q97367012) with different spelling. I restored Q50846076 (Abhijeet) and there is also Q94700719 (Abhijit) for the given name. Q4667389 still has one sitelink (hi:अभिजीत), which is a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which kind of relation is best for conjugation types?

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wanted to see how conjugation types are organized in Wikidata.

The results are:

I'm new to Wikidata ontology. What makes most sense in this situation? (Meanwhile I'll fix go Russian since that one is a clear outlier – "instance of" is used for conjugation class (P5186) in three other cases.) JWBTH (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neighborhood has Facebook groups

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello everyone,

I'm a bit confused on whether I can attach Facebook user group to the wikidata entry of my neighborhood. The thing is that a lot of districts and neighborhoods in my city have Facebook and Telegram user groups, where people post about their problems, buy and sell, opening of new shops, discounts and so on. There are not "official", of course, but number of members reaches minimum 7 000. I think they are vital to uncover to whomever moves to a new district or neighborhood, I've already added them to OSM, but it's troubling for me to correctly include them into Wikidata. At this point of time, I've created this entry of my neighborhood Orkhevi (Q130437988) and not sure whether I included Facebook groups' info correctly.

Could you pls advise on this matter? David Osipov (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

They need a qualifier object of statement has role (P3831) community group (Q106464965), but I'm not sure WD should record this given the poor mapping of our districts and a morass of Facebook groups Vicarage (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
About the mapping - we're working on it with OSM community :) There is a lot to do, yeap, but we're progressing. Thank you for the piece of advice, I'll use it right now. David Osipov (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unofficial groups being added to items is fraught with potential problems and it's unclear to me what the scope of "I'll use that right now" means. I think it might be worth seeking some more consensus and caution before adding or changing a significant number of statements. William Graham (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeap, that's what I want to get - some consensus on it. As for now, I've 100% aware of all the unofficial groups of my own neighborhood for now, so that I've edited only it for now. But I'm also aware of unofficial user groups of other neighborhoods and districts in the city of Tbilisi, Georgia. David Osipov (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to add a signature image?

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I see that many persons have their signatures (e. g. Ronald Reagan), while others do not (e. g. Sergey Aksakov). How do I add a person's signature, if there alredy exists an image at commons? — Monedula (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

use signature (P109) - Salgo60 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's OK, but where is the button "Add property"? — Monedula (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Be sure to use the desktop version of Wikidata, adding statements on mobile is sadly still not possible in 2024. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Video how you change from the desktop version - Salgo60 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now I see that is is called "add statement". But there are 2 of them on each page. Is there any difference? — Monedula (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no difference, you can use any one of them and the result will be the same (after a page refresh). Samoasambia ✎ 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

withdraw a property proposal

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

after some discussion it looks like the SWERIKS projects agree that they can use SWERIK ID (P12192) also for political parties in Sweden --> the Property proposal Wikidata:Property_proposal/SWERIK_Party_ID should be withdrawn.

  1. I changed the status to withdrawn
  2. what else is needed to be done ?

- Salgo60 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Salgo60: 1. is all you need to do, thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #551

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2024-10-28. Missed the previous one? See issue #650

Discussions

Events

  • Wikidata's 12th Birthday is almost here! Let’s celebrate together and make it unforgettable! 🎂 Join in for events happening across the globe in October & November -- there's something for everyone! Here’s how you can be part of the fun.
    • Find a local event and connect with fellow Wikidata enthusiasts!
    • Give a birthday gift to the community -- whether it's a cool new tool or something fun!
    • Join our big online celebration on October 29th -- don’t miss out! Wikidata:Twelfth_Birthday
    • Join the special Wikidata Query-party tomorrow and win some branded Wikidata socks! 🎉
  • The LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group is taking a break from our new project series format this coming Tuesday, October 29, 2024 at 9am PT / 12pm ET / 16:00 UTC / 6pm CEST (Time zone converter) to celebrate Hallowe'en! We'll be celebrating Spooky Season with a WitchyData Working Hour! Following on Christa Strickler's recent project series, we will continue building proficiency with the Mix'n'match tool, but with a ghoulish twist. Join the fall fun by updating your Zoom background or even coming in costume. BYOC (bring your own candy). Event page: Wikidata:WikiProject LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group/Wikidata Working Hours/2024-October-29 Wikidata Working Hour

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Lexica – A mobile-friendly tool that simplifies micro contributions to lexicographical data on Wikidata, making various editing tasks accessible and intuitive for contributors of all experience levels. This tool is developed by the WMDE Wikidata Software Collaboration team in Indonesia. Try Lexica through this link: https://lexica-tool.toolforge.org/

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • The Global Open Initiative Foundation is building an open-source web app for Supreme Court cases in Ghana. We are looking for volunteers in the following roles: Frontend Developers, Backend Developers, Wikidata/SPARQL Experts, UI/UX Designers, Quality Assurance (QA) Testers, and Legal Professionals. Join us by sendind your resume and a brief description of your expertise to globalopeninitiative gmail.com

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • Vector 2022: We are continuing to make Wikidata Items pages work in dark-mode (phab:T369385)
  • EntitySchemas: We are continuing to work on making it possible to search for an EntitySchema by its label or alias when making a statement linking to an EntitySchema
  • Wikibase REST API:
    • We discussed what will constitute breaking changes for the API (phab:T357775)
    • We are working on the endpoint for creating Properties (phab:T342992)

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

Weekly Tasks

Automatic RFD notifications?

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all, I have been watching from the sidelines for a few years now, but I'm back at it.

I have been spending quite some time on WD:RFD and wonder if it has ever been proposed that nominations to RFD should result in messages being sent to item creators? or recent editors? (probably not all, but perhaps in some cases?)

New user, no talk page, only contributor to an item that has been RFDed, send a welcome and a note about the deletion request? ·addshore· talk to me! 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have discussed such a bot several times, e.g. here: Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2022/07#Deletion without discussion. There may be similar discussions from that time, but I don't fully remember where they are. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
An interesting read, I can certainly see how 1 notification for each 1 RFD would be a bad idea.
Almost 1 notification per person maximum per day could be about right, or maybe even per week.
It would certainly make me as an admin feel better when trying to clean up WD:RFD / speed up the process as I wouldn't feel that I have to reach out to people as they will already have been informed.
Without having to rely on a bot posting messages to talk pages, we could always have the existing bot just @ mention the creator and or last editor.
Anyway, I'd love to hear some more and current thoughts! ·addshore· talk to me! 20:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
When using the RequestDeletion tool for creating RfD (can be activated in the settings) at least the creator gets notified (that does not work for bulk deletion requests). --Dorades (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMO the process should be split into nominations for deletion and requests for (speedy) deletion. Nominating would involve sending a message to the creator and letting them know what is wrong and what they should do in order to not have their item deleted (cf. User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted). The discussion could be held on the user's talk page or the item's talk page (which can be categorized, so that there is a general overview of currently or previously nominated items). Having these discussions on WD:RfD is very unfriendly (it's a long page with many threads, it takes long to publish a comment there, it's sensitive to accidental structure changes because we have bots maintaining it, etc.). The process of nominating could also be automated which I think is desperately needed. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a pretty nice idea! ·addshore· talk to me! 08:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
See User:ChristianKl/Draft:ProposeDeletion for a proposal for allowing PROD of items. GZWDer (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's also an interesting read, I wonder if it might be better facilitated by functionality from MediaWiki core or extensions? Delayed deletion would likely be a fairly easy one to code up. A user permission that allows you to submit a page for proposed deletion. Potentially some automatic notification to the author? A page to list what is pending? Automatic delete action if noone clicks object? Then it wouldn't have to rely on bots, more edits to Wikidata in general, and properties and statements etc? ·addshore· talk to me! 14:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We did a workaround 2021 see T291659 - Salgo60 (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge Piantoni (Q63041615) with Piantoni (Q63064860)

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Gentlemen, even if I enabled the box "merge" in my gadgets, it is impossible to merge these 2 items. Any idea please ? Ricercastorica (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because you are not supposed to merge disambugation items with family name items. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
precisely: Piantoni refers only to a family name, thank you Ricercastorica (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Duplicado

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In wikidata the people Q16190529 and Q15628981 is the same person. Is possible to merge them? Froin (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Wolverène (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Importing WP & WMC categories into Wikidata

edit
Latest comment: 10 hours ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There are many categories with data that is not in the corresponding Wikidata item.

For example, list of unsolved problems in biology (Q2628887) did not have subclass of: open problem (it could also be list of: open problems) set despite that the ENWP article has the category Category:Lists of unsolved problems. Likewise, Vuze (Q3563863) does not have programmed in: Java set despite its WMC category being in c:Category:Free software programmed in Java. These are just a few examples, there are also other categories about country of origin, year of birth/death, year of film production, software license, etc etc. It would waste a lot of time to enter the data again redundantly manually and also would be very monotonous for many similar items (even just the small number of unsolved problems list items).

Is there some tool that automatically and/or semi-automatically imports data from ENWP & WMC categories? If not, such is needed and could increase the data in Wikidata a lot. It doesn't mean the categories would be redundant, they never will be – but the data already entered should I think also be in Wikidata and be reasonably in sync with it. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A WD item corresponding to a WP list should not not be a subclass of the list element type. A query on P279 unsolved_problem should return a list of problems here, not WP pages with their own curated list. The WP list pages, and the disambiguation pages, have little purpose on WD which has its own way of recording the information, and should just be a bare bones record that a WP page exists. Vicarage (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is at most tangential to what this thread is about.
Nevertheless, I'm also interested in this. So what's the Wikidata list of open problems in biology? Is it nearly as complete as the Wikipedia list and what's the rationale of not making that item a subclass of open problems but just be a useless item that isn't showing up in relevant queries and just record[s] that a WP page exists? Prototyperspective (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
A list of castles is neither an instance nor a subclass of castle, its a subclass of list, but it would be pretty pointless to record it. I note that list of unsolved problems in biology (Q2628887) correctly reports a constraint violation over this. Making WD as comprehensive as the WP lists is a good idea, or ensuring the category statements become instance/subclass ones, but that would be done by annotating the list/category members, not the list/category items. Vicarage (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
So as far as I understand the correct way would be to have a new wikidata item for "unsolved problems in biology" with that subclass statement and a statement has list: Q2628887. If that's the case I think it would be better to have the item better findable and better interlinked, it's expectable that the WP list only lists a subset of these, this is already implied by it being linked as WP item so I think the way to add subclass of to List items would be better in many cases, including this one. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Faruqolaitan123 creations

edit
Latest comment: 11 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The user @Faruqolaitan123 seems to have spent 2022 creating a lot of hard to identify individuals, many of the items they have created seem to have only a single name and the most basic statements. What should one do when coming across cases like these? Nominate each for deletion or something else? StarTrekker (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2268007182"