Wikidata

Wikidata:Project chat

(Redirected from Wikidata:Project chat/simple)
Latest comment: 36 minutes ago by Trade in topic Distributed by for a television series

Edit

nameGuzzlerOption.js

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

How to use nameGuzzlerOption.js? I don't see any button. Eurohunter (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can be found by the names:
  • VIP's-Labels (en)
  • Etiquetas VIP (es)
  • Libellé de VIP (fr)
  • VIP-Bezeichnungen (de)
in the left navigation; also see User:Jitrixis/nameGuzzler.js -> title M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
When click on the ...VIP... link you get a popup like in the screenshot at d:Q23727110 M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@M2k~dewiki: Thanks. Item nameGuzzler (Q23727110) could be linked somewhere at User:Jitrixis/nameGuzzler.js? Eurohunter (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eurohunter: also see
With the introduction of
in July 2024 the single mul-label and aliases (multiple languages) could be used instead of the nameGuzzler. M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Commons categories and notability

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Under our current notability criteria, it's sufficient (for a non-category item) to have a single sitelink to a Commons category. This means that those wishing to create items about themselves simply have to find or upload personal photographs to Commons, add a category tag, and create the category. To delete the resulting Wikidata item, we have to first get all of those photographs deleted, and then the category. This takes a lot of time and effort from volunteers. Is this how we intend the system to work? How could it be improved? Bovlb (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this up, I think we should change this. Could we just delete this criterion regarding Commons categories? --Dorades (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would be more like adding a new exclusion to N1 (or rewriting N1.4). Bovlb (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is basically what Commons users have lobbied for a few years ago, quite intensively, when they rolled out the fully automatic Wikidata infobox to the majority of category pages.
The remaining open point (for years) is that there is no coordinated effort to get these situations resolved with a mutual deletion of unwanted material, because here we claim that there is notability as long as there is usage at Commons, and at Commons they claim there is notability because the media is being used at Wikidata. If there was a suitable process to deal with these cases, and both Wikidata and Commons participate in this process, then I think the situation would be much more bearable. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Imagine that we had some mechanism to tag an item as "this only qualifies as notable because of its sitelinks". This could be used in the Commons case, and also in the related case where people add spam articles to smaller Wikipedias. This tagging would indicate to other projects (say Commons) that they should not preserve things on their side for the benefit of Wikidata. We could also have some process for detecting that a tagged item has no sitelinks left so it could become a candidate for deletion. Bovlb (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could also have some process for detecting that a tagged item has no sitelinks left so it could become a candidate for deletion. Dexbot kind of does that, cf. Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Dexbot 13. --Dorades (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
According to the criteria Q91949506 and Q93303092 should not have been deleted, as they had Commons sitelinks and links from other items. Commons:Category:William Little Brown only has pages from the census but looks like it will be kept. A Commons sitelink should be enough if the category is in scope for Commons and is not just used for Wikidata. "at Commons they claim there is notability because the media is being used at Wikidata" - any evidence? Would the inclusion of a link to a Wikidata deletion request in the Commons deletion request be enough to overcome this type of objection? And I think that if there is a change, the exclusion to notability should only apply to certain types of subject (similar to en:WP:A7) - those that are likely to be out of scope for Commons or are hoaxes. Peter James (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
commons:Commons:Category inclusion criteria (as essay) says: "Get the Wikidata item deleted for failing Wikidata:Notability (remember 2 or 3 may still be satisfied) but if the 1st step isn't done (or fails) the Wikidata item will not be deleted. If its pointed out at the deletion request for the Wikidata item that the topic has a Commons category and some images then point to this section explaining the deletion of the WD item needs to happen first.". This explicitly requires the Wikidata item to be deleted first, whereas our notability criteria require the Commons category to be deleted first. Bovlb (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's only an essay, and it's advice rather than requirement. There is commons:Commons:INUSE for files, but a Wikidata item often only needs one file so a category with only Wikidata is unlikely to have many INUSE files. I don't know if there is a similar policy or guideline for categories. Peter James (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Both those items were created by my bot, but there was no notification that they were nominated for deletion (I normally get emails when this happens), so I think they were deleted out of process. If I'd seen them before deletion, I'd have !voted to keep them based on their usage on Commons. They should probably be undeleted and nominated properly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the second one: Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2024/08/23#Q93303092. --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We've had three ideas suggested:
  • Change our notability criteria so that a Commons category alone is not sufficient. (It appears that some in the Commons community believe this is already the case.)
  • Have a process to co-ordinate deletion between the two projects. (Is there a list of dual-admins?)
  • Have a way to tag an item to indicate to Commons that they should not keep something on their end just because it's being used in Wikidata.
Bovlb (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

My view in general is that: if the data is in use, the Wikidata item shouldn't be deleted. That should be a general principle, and should include usage in Commons structured data, and in categories. In the latter case, note that for people, Wikidata info such as dob/dod/names are used to auto-create the categories. I think it should be relatively straightforward in these cases: get the media deleted if it's not useful; it's easy to get rid of empty Commons categories (CSD them); then get the Wikidata item deleted. The latter could be a parallel discussion, if there's questions about notability, as is often the case when deleting Wikidata items with Wikipedia articles attached to them that are nominated for deletion. It's a connected problem, and it takes a bit longer, but it's not a complex one. Worst case, if it's really urgent, just find editors that are both Wikidata and Commons admins. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trying to get a consensus on English label for Q30 -- "United States of America" vs "United States"

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago12 comments10 people in discussion

Currently the label for United States of America (Q30) is "United States of America", which is the official name, however the wide usage is simply "United States". There has never been a consensus established in spite of several edit wars and a couple of attempts to establish consensus.

Background

edit
  • At the dawn of time the label was entered as "United States", but was changed in Feb 2013 (without consensus) to the official title, "United States of America"
  • Since then there have been multiple edits made between the two titles, including an apparent edit war in 2017 followed by an edict issued (without consensus) on the talk page to "Stop shortening English label", which was further followed by a (not particularly productive) discussion here on the Project page that also failed to reach consensus
  • It appears another minor edit war broke out in 2020 and (not counting vandalism) some smaller skirmishes pop up occasionally
  • In Dec 2023, a topic was posted on the talk page with a desire to shorten the label to "United States" and so far it was three additional "Support" comments and no "Oppose", but I think given the scope of the disagreement a more public discussion here on the Project Page is warranted so it can then be referred to on the talk page
  • To be clear, there has never been a consensus on the label either way -- despite the visibility of the topic, the length of time it has been kept as "United States of America", the persistence of the reversions back to "United States of America", and the edict issued (without consensus) on the talk page, there has never been a consensus on "United States of America" or "United States", as evidence by the amount of good faith edits (not vandalism) that have occurred over the label since the item's inception nearly 15 years ago

Proposal

edit

While trying to get a clear consensus, I am proposing to change the label to the shorter and more commonly used "United States" over the "United States of America" on the basis that it overwhelmingly better follows Wikidata's general principles for labels:

  • "Reflect common usage" -- "United States" is far more common than the official name "United States of America"
  • "Labels can be ambiguous" -- it has been pointed out that the shortened "United States" label could potentially be confused with the "United States of Mexico" or "Republic of the United States of Brazil", etc., however the labels for those countries are not the fuller versions themselves to avoid ambiguity with the United States of America, instead they are their common referred to names of Mexico (Q96) and Brazil (Q155). It has even been mentioned "United States" is too similar to "United Kingdom", although that's a stretch someone would need to specify "of America" to avoid confusion between the two.
    • In the vast majority of contexts, "United States" is not ambiguous
    • But even to the extent that it could be ambiguous, the reference is usually obvious (there are many examples of an ambiguous title with an obvious reference, such as London (Q84))
    • And furthermore, even if it was ambiguous, the label guidance explicitly states "Disambiguation information belongs in the description", so the label is not the appropriate place to disambiguate anyway
      • As an aside, would the following exchange be anything short of humorous (if not frustrating)? You -- "I visited the United States this past summer"; Me -- "of Brazil, of Mexico, or of America? Or did you mean United Kingdom?"
    • Summary -- In the vast majority of contexts "United States" is not an ambiguous reference in the least, but even if it was the label is not the proper place to disambiguate
  • "Wikimedia page title may give orientation" -- while not required to be the Wikipedia title, the clear bias is toward the Wikipedia title itself rather a variation of the Wikipedia title
    • "To figure out the most common name, it is good practice to consult the corresponding Wikimedia project page (for example, the title of a Wikipedia article). In many cases, the best label for an item will either be the title of the corresponding page on a Wikimedia project or a variation of that title"
    • Over 20 years ago this same issue was settled in favor of "United States" through consensus at Wikipedia for many of the same reasons that are being offered here
    • While the Wikidata label does not have quite the same criteria as a Wikipedia title, Wikipedia's article title guidance of 1) Recognizability, 2) Naturalness, 3) Precision, 4) Concision, and 5) Consistency are all satisfied with "United States" and those are solid criteria to use for this particular decision as well
    • The edit history has misplaced the defense of the label -- the label should be "United States" by default unless a consensus was reached to adopt the "United States of America" variation, which never occurred
      • The favored label should have been the Wikipedia title ("United States") and it should have been the label from the beginning (and it was...)
      • All subsequent changes of the label to "United States of America" have been made without consensus, even if the label currently stands at "United States of America"
      • The lack of consensus should mean reverting to the Wikipedia title and the original item label, which is "United States"
    • Summary -- both "United States" and "United States of America" technically fit this criterion, but the Wikipedia title ("United States") should prevail unless the advocates of the variation ("United States of America") make the compelling case for consensus otherwise, which has not been done aside from tirelessly preserving the change from "United States" to "United States of America" made (without consensus) in 2013

Discussion

edit

Please reserve discussion for below and indicate either   Support (change label to "United States") or   Oppose (keep label "United States of America"), preferably with brief rationale if needed.

This may have many comments, so please indicate either   Support or   Oppose so that a consensus can clearly emerge visually.

I think the norm is to let this simmer for a couple of weeks (which would be Jan 6, 2025) before concluding what the consensus is or whether one was reached.

However -- if anyone here is more familiar with how consensus is normally reached, please correct me! Lorenmaxwell (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Support I was going to support the fuller USA title, but your argument is very convincing and it makes sense to match/defer to Wikipedia's title anyway. I am in favor of using "United States". Nicereddy (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support As I generally use State, United States in a place located in the country, I don't think it should be different for the label. --Fralambert (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support and I routinely trim "of America" off of English descriptions of U.S.-related items as I encounter them. Most of them were added by bots based on the United States of America (Q30) label. Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Oppose For me it takes longer for my brain to parse when the word "America" is removed. --NoInkling (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support. The label should be the common name, not a disambiguated name, and clearly ‘United States’ is a common name here (since it is the name of the page in Wikipedia etc.). stjn[ru] 11:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support as the common name. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support Well reasoned nom, match long established enwiki title, preferable to display. Hameltion (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Oppose —Ismael Olea (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support Throwing my own vote in here --Lorenmaxwell (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Comment By the way, as a point of clarification, the official name of Mexico (Q96) is “United Mexican States”, and the official name of Brazil (Q155) is “Federative Republic of Brazil”. The U.S. is the only present-day country whose official English name begins with “United States”. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support United States is the most common--Trade (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge help requested

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Item:Q23137558 and Item:Q69493382 (Richmond Public Library System) need to be merged, but I am not sure how to go about that. Any assistance would be appreciated. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done. Main Library (Q23137558) is an individual library branch, while Richmond Public Library (Q69493382) is the library system. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Huntster,
Ahh, I see, thanks. Any thoughts/advice about renaming it to Main Library?
Thanks, JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done — Huntster (t @ c) 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hello! Wikidata items for years ranging from 1 to 2030 should be updated so that the shwiki sitelink contains a dot at the end. For example:

  • 2020 (shwiki, redirect) -> 2020. (shwiki, article)

I tried to do it manually, but the Wikidata user interface couldn't recognize my edit. I tried QuickStatements as well, with no result. The only way I could update the sitelink manually was by removing the old link and adding the updated one subsequently, just like here. That's really strange.

Thanks in advance, Aca (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

In progress. – Aca (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done. – Aca (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge request "Human Torpedo"

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see two items for Human Torpedo: Q2206515 and Q816356 Can somebody help me fix this? Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Siluro Lenta Corsa (Q2206515) is a specific Italian weapon. To make this clear I've given it the English name Maile, which is how its often referred to by other nations, and made it a subclass of human torpedo (Q816356) Vicarage (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rename Just Sports Stats player ID (Property:P3566)

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just Sports Stats is now called Stats Crew. www.statscrew.com WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Help me

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I want to link this article in persian wikipedia with it's translation in wikidata. wikipedia have bug and i can't fix it... can someone help me ? thanks a lot. Hulu2024 (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hulu2024:   Done; the item is semi-protected; you will be able to edit directly semi-protected items when you reach 50 edits on Wikidata (you are now at 41). Cf. Wikidata:Autoconfirmed users. Epìdosis 09:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Penalty score

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! How to specify the penalty score for a football match (Q268567, Q55659738)? Maybe we should suggest a new property for the score? Mitte27 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

From Special:WhatLinksHere/Q2691960 I found Q55350317#P1363 where match interval (P6887) is a qualifier for points/goal scored by (P1363). For the score I found Q4597128#P1923 but I'm not sure about that as score method (P1443) only works as a qualifier for one of the number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) qualifiers, not for the participating team (P1923). Peter James (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think @Mitte27 has asked about the second usage, the score — unfortunately I think this example is not viable, because there score method (P1443) is a qualifier for Nigeria men's national football team (Q181930) and Cameroon men's national football team (Q175309) values, and not a qualifier for the number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) qualifier's second value. Well very well (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Returned from archive. Well very well (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is people's opinion of dbpedia?

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Faced with the onerous task of copying 50000 ship launch/commission dates from EnWiki, I thought I'd use dbpedia's json versions of the pages. But I've found that they haven't adjusted their pages 18 months after redirects were changed on Wikipedia, you can't join their forum because registration confirmation emails don't arrive, the usage documentation is poor, some pages are just error logs, and outside the strict confines of dates, the dataset quality looks too full of holes to copy into here. Have others had a more positive experiences working with it? Vicarage (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Using DBpedia will make the job a lot simpler. You can do all (!) of the information gathering with a federated query. I don't think old data is a problem since it doesn't change except for fixes or additions. The revision used for Ever Given was from November 2022. Since it is structured data, you won't get things that aren't valid dates. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly on DBPedia's public endpoint which uses OpenLink Virtuoso I got a weird error message about needing write permissions. And Wikidata struggles with timeouts when dealing with the large intermediate sets. Lucky for us QLever have a copy of the big graphs which has the nice bonus of eliminating network overhead and it is also fast. Here's asking for dates of maiden voyages in DBPedia not in Wikidata: https://qlever.cs.uni-freiburg.de/dbpedia/c75TB6 Infrastruktur (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I can do a lot with that. From a casual glance it looks like the results its returning are the ones I manually found to be valid. Any ship that it had problems with in the https://dbpedia.org/data hierarchy, producing error codes or null entries, or a botched value, has been been omitted, so its a clean dataset, if not a comprehensive one. Vicarage (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vicarage: I would never use Dbpedia anymore for anything. I don't like the quality and that it's usually lagging (expect some angry DBpedia fan to respond to this). Looking at your recent edits, I guess from en:SMS Salamander (1861) you would like to extract the "Ship launched" date and add it. I wonder if https://pltools.toolforge.org/harvesttemplates/ can be used for that? Multichill (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Persons with themselves as siblings

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I found 10 persons who are their own brothers or sisters : https://w.wiki/CYyR author  TomT0m / talk page 15:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Related: tagfilter=self-referencing recent changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can someone create an edit filter that stops — or at least warns about — self-referencing edits? (Excempting Q179976, of course.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the case of siblings or persons in general, there is a risk of merging homonyms that could lead to self referencing items. I don't know if an edit filter would warn about this ? author  TomT0m / talk page 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Justification for avoiding paired properties

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am discussing with @Huntster here why ship classes should not use has part(s) (P527) when their ships use vessel class (P289) to refer to them, as the duplication of information leads to errors. They have asked for written justification of this policy, which I'm struggling to find. Can anyone say where the principle of not having reciprocal property pairs is documented on Wikidata? Vicarage (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vicarage You can link to help:BMP to explain that "has part" is not made for this. A boat class is a su class of vessels, so "has part" here is made to link to boat parts like "mast". The relation akin to P289 is "instance of" and we never list the instances in the classes items.
We simply do not have an inverse property "has instance" and I think this simple fact is kind of the police/consensus. It's just an abuse of "has part" as the usual semantics of has part/is part of is "whole/part relationships (the heart is a part of the body, things like that). author  TomT0m / talk page 08:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
so "has part" here is made to link to boat parts like "mast". ... Isn't that what has part(s) of the class (P2670) is for? It's certainly what it's being used for. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Huntster No, has part(s) (P527) is to be used like in classical ontologies. has part(s) of the class (P2670)   is to be used between concrete object and parts type. Between a whole type and a part type, has part(s) (P527) should be used, as well as with a concrete object and one of its concrete part, like , which is not the same thing as saying "Albert Einstein has arms" (or does not have part (P3113)  ), which is what for has part(s) of the class (P2670) is to be used.
In this query, which is supposed to find boats with masts : https://w.wiki/CZgK the RRS Discovery (Q82257) is correct, for example, but it's mixed up with boats model of classes which are not supposed to be there. This is kind of ironic because we created this property (I proposed it) to avoid this kind of mixup :)
It's consistent with what is done in some other ontologies, for example you can browse this one : [1] it's an ontology about biological entities, and to see the relationship click on the orange button "graph" then check "part of" and "has part", you'll see that they link classes of biological objects (this is what ontologies are for, usually).
To sum up,
  • to link concrete stuff, like Albert Einstein to its brain : use has part.
  • to link classes of concrete stuff to classes of concrete stuffs, like "human being" and "human brain", use "has part" as well. They are of the same level of abstraction so no risk of mixup.
  • to link a concrete stuff to a class of stuff he his made of, which is mainly useful if it has something that the other things of the same kind has not (like if we had an item for a sheep, which happens to have 5 legs or something, use "has part of the type". Or some engine boat one extra engine has been added compared to its class, you can use the pattern
    ⟨ a concrete boat like the Titanic ⟩ has part(s) of the class (P2670)   ⟨ engine ⟩
    quantity (P1114)   ⟨ 4 ⟩
    , while in its class item it might be noted
    ⟨ its class ⟩ has part(s) (P527)   ⟨ engine ⟩
    quantity (P1114)   ⟨ 3 ⟩
    .
author  TomT0m / talk page 20:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deleted items still in use elsewhere

edit
Latest comment: 5 hours ago22 comments9 people in discussion

Looking at items listed in deleted. Wikidata:Database reports/Deleted Wikidata entities used in SDC - there are 40 deleted items with over 100 uses in Commons; and 78 with over 50.

A systematic, collaborative, review of the remaining items listed in our report, starting with the most-used, would be wise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators have been asking the Wikidata development team for ages for better tools and access to usage in structured data for Commons, no progress has been made to prevent this in the future. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was able to glean all of the above information without such tools. While they might be nice to have, we can do better than we currently do, with what we already have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The deletion comment for Q232734 says "Does not meet the notability policy: RfD: See Talk:Q232734 conflation between Q105893254 and Q15924669" (links added). If it was a long-standing conflation, then we should update uses to point to the correct item, not retain it or merge it.
I agree that we need better tools for deletion. They should include: checking for in-links, SBC, and other client projects such as OpenStreetMap; checking history for recent changes; checking for recreation of existing items; notifying creators/editors. Bovlb (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We still can't see what Talk:Q232734 said; nor examine the history to see at what point conflation might have occurred, nor what the item represented when it was created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The item was created in 2012 with a lot of sitelinks. Looking at the *current* contents of those sitelinks, I see at least five related but distinct concepts (city, hill, hot pools, thermal springs, travertine lake, place/site, disambiguation). Bovlb (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note that the numbers in that report are too high, it's counting most statements twice. - Nikki (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Q123688861 is supposedly c:Category:Stanley Cup visits Yosemite (July 3, 2011) which has 700 files.
more importantly, that event made the news on nbc, abc, nesn, etc. : https://www.google.com/search?q=Stanley+Cup+Yosemite .
it's frustrating that time and time again wikidata users dismiss commons community's needs and delete such items. RoyZuo (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fralambert: because of deletion of Q123688861 --Emu (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We don't want to delete items that are in use any more than you do, but WMDE and the WMF are still failing (or outright refusing) to give us the tools we need to work effectively. We've been asking for SDC usage to be visible in Wikidata for at least five years (phab:T239628, phab:T334352). We've been asking for better/usable access to the Commons query service for at least four years (phab:T265891, phab:T297995). We've been asking for a way to override messages locally that works for all languages for at least eleven years (phab:T50956). - Nikki (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The deletion policy is crystal clear - SDC is not even a consideration. If you wish to change the policies you're welcome to do so (as part of a separate thread), but otherwise I believe this discussion is concluded. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, you are wrong: the deletion policy says an item may not be deleted if it is notable; and the notability policy says an item may exist if "It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful." It does not say that those statements or items need to be on Wikidata rather than Commons.
Secondly, even if you are right, there is the issue of deleting an item used hundreds or even thousands of times in a sister project, without discussing with or even notifying that project. Nor even updating the affected items there.
Thirdly, an active discussion is not ended just because you say so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh come on, you don’t need to be an expert on statutory interpretation to realize that items in WD:N #3 can’t possibly mean “each and everything on every project ever”. --Emu (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Emu: On Commons, we are pretty careful not to delete images that are in use on Wikidata, unless there is a copyright issue and we simply cannot keep the image. This comes up almost daily for images that might otherwise be deleted. I don't necessarily think a single use on SDC should be enough reason to keep an item on Wikidata but 50+ uses? Please keep in mind: WMF has been pushing Commons to move more and more data exclusively to SDC, often against the wishes of a lot of the Commons editors. It is particularly hard for us to cooperate if a sister project is liable to throw that data away, especially in a manner that does not let us readily determine what was removed.
@Sjoerddebruin: says the tools are not there. Isn't it possible to run a query on SDC to see if an item is in use? Could such a tool be made readily available so that it could be checked before deletion?
Anyone: I'm guessing there must be some overlap of Commons administrators and Wikidata administrators. Does anyone know who those might be, so that on Commons we have someone to go to who can examine deleted items referenced by SDC so that we don't have to go to the Internet Archive to try to work out what was removed from SDC?
Please ping me if replying. I don't maintain a watchlist on Wikidata. - Jmabel (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: "Isn't it possible to run a query on SDC to see if an item is in use? Could such a tool be made readily available so that it could be checked before deletion" A simple search on Commons will suffice; example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So even simpler. It should be pretty trivial to have a gadget that would link that search from any given item on Wikidata. - Jmabel (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel I was just responding to this specific claim. I can see the problem. I’m surprised to hear that a Wikidata item is relevant to Commons notability and to be honest, this comes as a shock to me because it almost invites spam. --Emu (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"a Wikidata item is relevant to Commons notability" Who said that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
see above: On Commons, we are pretty careful not to delete images that are in use on Wikidata --Emu (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It isn't exactly "notability" as such: it's just that we are pretty careful not to delete images that are in use by other projects on the basis that they are out of what Commons would usually consider its scope. And, yes, we have occasionally run into some at least borderline abuse: at least one user who created Wikidata items for non-notable family members and then used that to try to defend keeping the images on Commons. Consequently, we put a little less weight on it if the uploader is the one who added it to Wikidata, and especially if, well, it looks like there is an overall pattern of abuse. But usually our approach is "get it off of the sister project first if you want it deleted as out of Commons' scope." - Jmabel (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: The list of users who are administrators at both Wikidata and Commons is here, from what I see it is pretty much accurate except for Jarekt. Specifically, we are talking about Ebrahim, Jianhui67, Lymantria, Mike Peel, Minorax, Multichill, Romaine, Ymblanter (myself), and علاء Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not complete, e.g. The_Squirrel_Conspiracy Bovlb (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Identifiers about Wikipedia articles

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

How do we show that an identifier is about an Wikipedia article as opposed to the real-life subject itself?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bhutanese-passport Trade (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the Wikipedia article is notable, why not creating an item about it ? author  TomT0m / talk page 07:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would discourage linking to memes that are not directly related or particularly relevant to the item or other common sense issues. Example: The item for Shaq has no links to memes but the item for rickrolling does. Infrastruktur (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I dont think you can really seperate the article from the meme in this case Trade (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unable to edit Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Q22676705)

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I tried to add Jae U. Jung (Q13452350) as a 958th author. But it is not possible due to size of Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Q22676705) Eyeweek (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Weekly Summary #660

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2024-12-30. Missed the previous one? See issue #659

Welcome to 2023’s Final Weekly Summary!

A huge thank you to everyone who contributed to the newsletter this year! 🎉 Each of your contributions, whether big or small, has made a difference and has helped us create a vibrant and informative resource for the Wikidata community. 🙏 Let's continue building and sharing knowledge together in the coming year! 🙌✨

Discussions

  • Open request for oversight: Ameisenigel (RfP scheduled to end at 6 January 2025 21:52 UTC)

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

  • Papers
    • Library Data in Wikimedia Projects: Case Study from the Czech Republic by Jansová, L., Maixnerová, L., & Š´tastná, P. (2024). "The paper outlines the collaboration between the National Library of the Czech Republic and Wikimedia since 2006, focusing on linking authority records with Wikipedia articles and training librarians and users. By 2023, the National Library provided most of its databases under a CC0 license, launched a "Wikimedians in Residence" program, and collaborated on projects involving linked data and using authority records in Wikidata. This partnership has enhanced their cooperation for mutual benefit, identifying key factors for their successful long-term collaboration."
    • How have you modelled my gender? Reconstructing the history of gender representation in Wikidata by Melis, B., Fioravanti, M., Paolini, C., & Metilli, D. (2024). "The paper traces the evolution of gender representation in Wikidata, showing how the community has moved from a binary interpretation of gender to a more inclusive model for trans and non-binary identities. The Wikidata Gender Diversity project (WiGeDi) timeline highlights the significant changes influenced by external historical events and the community's increased understanding of gender complexity."
  • Videos: Arabic Wikidata Days 2024 - Data Science Course - First Practical Session: Wikibase-CLI Tool (part 1, part 2) by Saeed Habishan. "The Wikibase-CLI enables command-based interaction with Wikidata using shell scripts and JavaScript. The tool runs on NodeJS and enables automatic reading and editing of Wikidata."

Tool of the week

  • WikiORA - is a tool designed for gene over-representation analysis. It integrates data from Wikidata, Wikipedia, Gene Ontology, and PanglaoDB to help researchers identify significantly enriched gene sets in their data.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • Most of the development team staff are still taking a break, so no development happened.

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

Conflicting "official" lake names

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, there is a Swedish lake with two names, each by offical sources: at Q10681019 it is named "Stora Horredssjön" with "also known as 'Stora Hornsjön'" - matching the name for that lake at lansstyrelsen.se and linked to the correct Swedish lake ID (SE636512-129668) and the corresponding EU Surface Water Body Code SE636512-129668. The latter uses the second named. In a separate wikidata entry Q49311762, it has the name "Stora Hornsjön", only - matching the naming on the lantmäteriet map. Which one is considered more authoritative? Should they be merged and listed as "also known as"? Uli@wiki (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I merged Q49311762 into Q10681019. I'm not sure which name should be the main label and which should be in "also known as" - Q49311762 was based on GNS Unique Feature ID (P2326), which is unreliable for names, coordinates and feature types (as is GeoNames ID (P1566), with some exceptions), but Lake ID (Sweden) (P761) and EU Surface Water Body Code (P2856) use different names. Peter James (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I might actually write to lansstyrelsen for clarification. Maybe they'll even answer. Uli@wiki (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Distributed by for a television series

edit
Latest comment: 36 minutes ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I was checking Whose Line Is It Anyway? (Q922713) and I found a constraint issue concerning distributed by (P750):

The entities Whose Line Is It Anyway? and Hulu should be contemporary to be linked through distributed by, but the latest end value of Whose Line Is It Anyway? is 4 February 1999 and the earliest start value of Hulu is March 2007.

How can I work around this problem?-- Carnby (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The overlap requirement makes no sense, as creative works keep being distributed for ever. I suggest you make that point at distributed by (P750), and if no-one objects, remove the constraint. Obviously the first distributor makes the most difference to the project, but that's not required by the property. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Q103474) has 4 distributors. Vicarage (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is Hulu even the distributor of this show? Film/tv distributors (en:Film distributor) are specialised companies; and streaming services like Hulu or Netflix don't automatically fall under that label simply by streaming a film/show. In some cases, Hulu might indeed be the distributor (either worldwide or in a certain country/region), but in many others they will have acquired the streaming rights from a film distribution company. Seems like there are a lot of these erronous statements that were added just because the item had an ID from a streaming service, but without any evidence whatsoever that the streaming company was actually also the distributor in these cases. To state that a particular show was available on a service, broadcast by (P3301) is the more suitable property. --2A02:810B:581:C300:50E9:90E8:D2C2:7B08 01:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done Good workaraound, thank you very much.-- Carnby (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We should probably do the same with every other item that lists Hulu as the distributor because they stream the work Trade (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merge request: Biggersville (Q122544740) into Biggersville (Q43080778)

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These are the same entity. I'm not positive how to use the tools to merge them. Lorenmaxwell (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Apologies for the duplicate creation. --Quesotiotyo (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Query to find uncategorized Commons images used on a Wikipedia

edit
Latest comment: 22 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, before I added a category, this file was uncategorized on Commons, but was used on a page on the Greek language wikipedia. Maybe using Petscan?, is there a way of searching say all pages in the category Museums in Greece, and its subcategories, to list images used on those pages that are uncategorized in Commons? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

MergeItem

edit
Latest comment: 4 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please merge the following items: Q42896436 is redundant except for the commons link. Q7915654 is connected to two wikis. Thanks in adavance! --Känguru1890 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2293604400"