Shortcut: WD:PC

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Revision as of 06:17, 23 August 2016 by 158.129.160.100 (talk)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Property proposals needing comments

Thinking about some properties that have been created recently without much participation on the proposal, I realised that before any requirement for a minimum number of comments could be introduced that we need some way of highlighting property proposals that have been open a while without much input. My initial thought is a page which lists or transcludes them. A bot should be able to add any which meet certain criteria - open >= 14 days AND fewer than 3 unique signatures on the page (i.e. proposer + 2 others) is my initial thinking but I'm not set on these. Humans could of course add any others they come across that need more input for different reasons (e.g. lots of comments but no votes, third opinion needed, etc); to keep the page tidy a bot would remove all closed proposals. I think a page is better than a category as a page appears on watchlists rather than requiring people to look at a category, although I don't object to a category as well. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we don't introduce a strict community rule ("must be open X days with at least Y votes") but use it as help to increase participation, I strongly support this idea! -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Lymantria (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging more participation would be good, requiring it would be harmful. The essay at en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus also makes useful points; notenlast "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this proposal is only about encouraging participation. I believe that requiring it would not be a bad thing, but I am not proposing that here (or anywhere else currently) and arguments for and against required participation are not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone writes the bot to do it we can also add it to the weekly summary every week. Just add it to Wikidata:Status updates/Next. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Unfortunately I do not have the skills required to write a bot, so someone else will need to volunteer to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a mere aging report is sufficient. If they haven't been closed after two weeks, it's likely they need further input.
--- Jura 10:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, although some will be just waiting for a property creator to spot it's been marked [Ready] but their presence on this page should alert them to that if the category hasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have created the first version of the page at Wikidata:Property proposal/Attention needed. I've used a slightly arbitrary cut-off of 20 July for the starting list, including only those proposals with the latest obvious activity on or before that date. This means there are currently 34 subpages listed (a handful with more than one property proposal on them). As I can't program a bot all updates will have to be manual at this point, I will try to do it but all help greatly appreciated.

Please give some attention to these proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also now Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview --Pasleim (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that Pasleim, I think the two approaches complement each other well. Currently these two pages are linked only from here and Category:Properties ready for creation (where I have just added them). This seems inadequate to get the attention they are intended to, so where else can they be advertised? Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata:Property proposal/sound pressure seems to be missing on "attention needed". -- Jura 18:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last comment was left on 3 August, the "automatic" inclusion on the list wont happen for a few days yet (yesterday I added all properties with a most recent comment of 27 July or earlier, later today I'll add those with a last comment date of 28 July). However, if you think any property proposal not on the list should be there just add it to the bottom of the list (the intro says "Any user acting in good faith, including the proposer, may add or remove a proposal"). Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why it wouldn't be included automatically. Why this selective inclusion?
        --- Jura 12:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because this is a list of proposals needing attention, not a list of all proposals. If you want a list of all open proposals see Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview and Wikidata:Property proposal/all. The inclusion criteria are 1. everything that is still open and last received a comment ~12 or more days ago, and 2. any other proposal somebody thinks needs attention. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's still another set of criteria. It seems rather other that we should edit the list manually. What seems odd is that apparently you think people can consider that a proposal needs attention in "bad faith". The initially stated 14 days seems a good inclusion criterion. Can you expand/limit it to that?
            --- Jura 08:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Anyone can do almost anything in good or bad faith, that very very few people do do it in bad faith doesn't seem relevant here? The list is edited manually because the inclusion criteria demand it - there is no way for a bot (not that anyone has programmed one for it yet) to determine whether something needs input from more people for example - the no comments in X days is automatable though. I also don't understand your point re 14 days, as you started by complaining that a proposal which received a comment 7 days previously wasn't appearing and now you want to exclude more than currently? You seem to want the initial proposal but that also clearly said that "Humans could of course add any others they come across that need more input for different reasons" which you seem to object to? Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • My request was to add any proposal that is older than 14 days. No need to exclude those where you commented yesterday.
                --- Jura 19:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK I now understand what you are asking, and I'll probably move to that if (hopefully when) the number of proposals on the list with the current criteria reduces. It's already longer than ideal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of properties needing attention is growing significantly faster than it is shrinking - in the past 48 hours only one proposal listed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Attention needed has received any input but nine more properties have racked up 14 days since the last comment (and many of the last comments are by me). If this list and Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview are not solving the problem of attracting attention to properties that need it we need to start thinking of something different. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with P949

There is some problem with National Library of Israel ID (old) (P949) causing hundreds of entries being added to single item (see William Shakespeare (Q692) or [1]). I already reported the problem at property talkpage weeks ago, but there is no feedback, as the proposer of the property is not yet active on WD and he was apparently the only maintainer of the property. Any body can help?

(I think it is also the illustration why we need more than one supporting vote at property proposals). --Jklamo (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jklamo: Please explain how you draw that conclusion from the case at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is obvious. National Library of Israel ID (old) (P949) was created hastily after only 3 day of discussion with only one supporting vote. So there was no time to found out that there is some structural problem with this property. Now we have thousands of items with wrong data that nobody wants to fix (as apparently there is no simple way to fix).--Jklamo (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"3 day of discussion" relates to duration, not the number of supporting comments. P949 suggests a property from Wikidata's early days - we would no longer create one in such short time, (at least not without greater scrutiny - see proposal below for a speedy creation process requiring such safeguards). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed it out somewhere also. Having dozens or hundreds of identifiers does not serve a purpose. I cannot read Hebrew and the translator does not do it justice. I think the parameter is identifying works where the person is mentioned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the meaning of the property is unclear or it is used in the wrong way. The current use is obviously (unintended) spam and should be removed. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I agree. There are 3600+ items with more than one entry. All these are wrong.
And there is similar problem with P1946 (P1946) [2]. --Jklamo (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are only "all wrong" if having a single ID and no more is a hard limit. I see no evidence of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like something that can be fixed. There are also other properties used on both people and works. @Magnus Manske: could de-activate the Mix'N'Match catalog?
--- Jura 06:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now deactivated. All data is preserved, just in case. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made a bot request for some basic clean-up: Wikidata:Bot_requests#P:P949_cleanup.
--- Jura 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

A few months ago it was suggested by Lymantria that search results should not show suggestions. Due to the structured nature of Wikidata the search doesn’t give a useful suggestion like it does on other Wikimedia projects. There were only a few people who commented last time this was discussed. I’d like to ask the community again and make a decision. Should we remove the “Did you mean…” feature from Wikidata?

A few examples to help illustrate:

  • Search for “Danke” suggests “dane”
  • Search for “liter” suggests “liste”
  • Search for “roger” suggests “roller”

Please let me know what you think and I’ll update the task with a decision in a week (or so). Thank you again for your time. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, as even searching in English it rarely generates useful results. Even when it doesn't actively get in the way it's just clutter suggesting seemingly random alternatives for correctly spelled English words. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work correct and if it can't be changed to work correct then turn it of. When you search for Hans Tanke it shouldn't start searching for Hans Table. Especially on a multilingual project like Wikidata it should search for what the user types. Mbch331 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but, in the same time, I don't understand why when you type (in French) "Gustave Raulin" you only get Gustave Raulin (Q26252489) (Gustave Raulin) and not Gustave Rauline (Q3121306) (Gustave Rauline)... — Ayack (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One feature I would like to seek, is the possibility to have different search-boxes for Content (P & Q-namespaces) and Non-content pages (Help/Project/Property_talk/etc-namespaces). It is today often frustrating to do non-content-searches. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Innocent bystander! --Epìdosis 18:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is true of all Wikimedia Projects and I personally feel your pain. Even external searches (Google) to find meta information can be a challenge. Let me follow up with the search team and see if there's an elegant way to solve this (T142635 ). My personal opinion: Two search boxes in the top right sounds like it might be a little confusing to most people :). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the simplest would be a prefix code that indicates you want to search non-content namespaces, similar to how prefixing a search here with p: indicates you want to search the property namespace only. It would need to be something that is short, doesn't conflict with namespaces, interwiki or interlanguage links and is unlikely to occur in content page titles - "proj:" is my first thought, but that might be confused with searching the project namespace only. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are searching property names (or some property types), it may be helpful to use this tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/browse?type=properties --Laboramus (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as such feature is not part of or linkde from the official Wikidata search, such tools are of no use for new or occasional editors -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's been a little over a week and the responses here are in favor or removing it (especially if it doesn't work right!). We've created a task to remove it in the near future. Thank you all for discussing this, I appreciate the time. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we're talking about the searchbox on wikidata, I've got a suggestion: It'd be useful to show suggestions (those while typing, not those on the result page) for other namespaces, like it is on onther wikis. I.e. typing WD:Prop would suggest WD:Properties. For the Property namespace it'd be great if those would work simmiliar to those for the item namespace (searching for all alternative names in addition to the ID). Oh, and just noticing it again: What about something like en:MediaWiki:Gadget-search-new-tab for wikidata, or (preferably) making the enwiki/commons gadget work here? --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArticlePlaceholder is now live on Welsh and Kannada Wikipedia

Hey folks :)

Just a quick note that we have now rolled out the ArticlePlaceholder on Welsh and Kannada Wikipedia as well. Both project had requested it. Here are 2 example pages:

We are continuing to work on improving it based on the feedback we've gotten so far from the projects that already have it. This includes layout fixes, making it possible to translate an article from another language using the ContentTranslation tool and getting them to show up in search engine results.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): I've just clicked on the first link on my iPad, it launched the Wikipedia app and displayed an error message: "The page you requested doesn't exist". — Ayack (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they really need to limit the URL's that open in the app. It even tries to open the Arbitration Committee wiki in it. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JMinor (WMF): Can you please have a look? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this response too so long. Unfortunately its not entirely in our control to selectively open pages in app. Bascially the OS chooses to open the app or web browser by domain, and we basically register to open all *.wikipedia.org domains (we exclude domains we don't handle, such as meta, wikidata and mediawiki. See this request to exclude special and flow pages from deeplinking if possible: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T143267 That said, the article placeholder pages should work, as they are not special pages and should be handled as though they were standard articles, so I have filed a specific ticket for that: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T143273 — JMinor (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community communication for Wikidata

Hello everybody,

I’m Léa, I’m working at Wikimedia Deutschland since today as community communication manager for Wikidata

We may already have met on the Wikimedia projects with my personal account, Auregann. I contribute on French Wikipedia, where I used to participate in the newcomers welcoming project, add a few pictures on Commons, and I’m an active member of the local user group laNCO, in which I organized a lot of community events, training sessions and GLAM partnerships since 2011.

I used to work in IT, web development, on a local open data program, then I’ve been an IT trainer in libraries for three years.

I started my position at WMDE to support Lydia on the community communication on Wikidata, and some projects of improving the Wikimedia projects with Wikidata data : I will also support all the structured data efforts for Wikipedia, Commons, Wiktionnary… I’m here to discuss with volunteers who edit the projects, welcome your ideas and suggestions, help to find solutions to your problems and make sure that we can work together to improve our projects and keep editing our favorite knowledge base in a nice atmosphere

I will begin by discovering the working processes on Wikidata, chatting with you and helping Lydia to answer to the technical questions. I’ll also work on upcoming topics such as reviewing our communication tools, getting the improved showcase items selection process going, and organizing something cool for Wikidata’s 4th anniversary

If you have any question, suggestion or idea, my talk page is wide open and I will answer you as soon as I can. If you think that my advice could be useful or if you want to inform me about a discussion happening somewhere, feel free to ping me. You can also send me an e-mail (lea.lacroix@wikimedia.de) or reach me on IRC (LeaAuregann_WMDE).

I’m very happy to join the team and look forward to working with you on all your projects!

Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

density vs. population density

I've noticed that density (P2054) has been used for "population density" - e.g. Rotterdam (Q34370), Rome (Q220), Lisbon (Q597), etc. Moreover, even worse, it is being used without any unit, so even if one accepted the wrong idea that density (P2054) can mean that, these numbers are still useless as it's not clear what they actually measure. I suspect most of those are produced by User:Titanopedia, but didn't check it.

So, should we have population density property? Should we keep those items around before the property is created and then migrate them? --Laboramus (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A claim without unit and without source like that in Lisbon#P2054 is not worth migrating! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: "population density" maybe is related to such a thing as "density" in English. But they are not at all related in other languages. If somebody only familiar with Swedish reads "density":1234 for UK they will finally understand why they meassure weight in "Stones". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laboramus, Innocent bystander: I don't think we need a property for population density (Q22856). I mean, we already have population (P1082) and area (P2046), did we really need a third property who is just the division of the first two ? The only case I can see is if the source only give the density and not the population and the area, but it seems really very unlikely (or only if the source is bad, and then it wouldn't be a good idea to use it).
Indeed beware langages, I was puzled at first as in French the « densité » *can't* have a unit (as in French, « densité » is a false-friend for relative density (Q11027905)).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON: I am not so sure that it is as simple as "is just the division of the first two". pop-density can be calculated both on the total area and sometimes on the land area. I am currently adding data about Swedish urban areas. The area of these were started to be reported in 1980 and both land and water area was then reported. Since 1990 only land area is measured and the water area is now not regarded as a part of the entity at all. For Swedish Municipalities there are four different areas reported, "land", "sea water", "water in the four great lakes" and "other lakes and watercourses waters". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander: sure, you need to to the right division with the right numbers (obvisouly, you don't divide either the 2010 population by the current area if there was a different area in 2010) but still, it's just a division, isn't it ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute to set a data quality framework for Wikidata

Dear Wikidata members, We are working on setting a data quality framework for Wikidata, as part of a research project carried out by members of the Web and Internet Science group of the University of Southampton.

Determining the quality of Wikidata is crucial for its future development. We believe that its community should have a primary role in defining what data quality means in Wikidata. Therefore, we would like to ask community members to contribute to our data quality framework draft by adding comments, suggestions, and concrete example of quality issues on Wikidata.

The draft has been published as a Request for Comment and can be found at this address: Data quality framework for Wikidata
Many thanks,
--Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :) Just for everyone's info: Alessandro has been working with us in the office for the past 2 weeks and it'd be great if you could support him in his work. I believe it will be valuable for Wikidata. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Alessandro Piscopo: What about bringing quality statements (like the 1.0 classification) to Wikidata? Because they are language-specific they could be done as badges.--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be interesting. We should agree first what we mean with "quality" though. --Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi, attention to quality is good but I think the basics of what is perceived quality is in the occurrence of statements that describe links to other articles in Wikipedia. This allows for article level activitiy and work done in any language maps to work in all other languages. When we focus on what Wikidata is supposed to do in this way, most other quality considerations have a framework; the use that brings to being the data storage for Wikimedia projects. PS I blogged about this and welcome any arguments. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GerardM: interesting point of view. My doubt is: if Wikidata's quality should be considered in relation to what it can contribute to Wikipedia, don't you think that it may be limiting for the project? I think Wikidata might have much broader application that the mere support of Wikipedia. --Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical dictionaries (articles, subjects and authors)

We have Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415) for the ODNB. I looked for but couldn't find something similar for en:American National Biography, which has 722 links in the English Wikipedia, not all from articles, but most of them are. The URL is of the form http://www.anb.org/articles/15/15-01098.html (that URL is for George Meany (Q141704)). I would like to create the property and add it to that item, and also to somehow note that the author of the article is David Brody (Q5231769). Is there a way to indicate that, or do authors have a separate ID number in publications like this? Carcharoth (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. If you want to link anb.org/articles/15/15-01098.html to George Meany (Q141704) through an external ID it's just that. A new property for "article id in the American National Biography (Q465854)" needs to be proposed here. The external identifier would be ..."15/15-01098" I suppose.
It would be "technically" feasible adding author (P50)->David Brody (Q5231769) as a qualifier, but as far as I know storing this kind of bibliographic metadata in external-IDs-statements-qualifiers ...is not a common thing.
In that cases I think we use more something like described by source (P1343)->American National Biography (Q465854), adding as qualifiers stuff like author (P50), volume (P478), page(s) (P304), reference URL (P854), section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) and so on. You can even create an item for the article "George Meany (Q141704)" in the American National Biography (Q465854) itself. Strakhov (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I get what you mean by 'described by source' - that is like creating a citation. That data already exists. I wonder if there is a way to create such 'citations' purely from the id numbers? That is, after all, the main use of such id numbers for databases like this. They are collections of articles and the id numbers identify the article about the person. I will have a go at creating a proposal for the ANB ID numbers. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to source a particular fact ("add reference"/"citation") you can use 1) stated in (P248)->"item" (article, book, database...) or 2) reference URL (P854)->"http://www.anb.org/articles/15/15-01098.html" or, technically 3) American National Biography id (P????)->"15/15-01098". You may wanna complement this info with author (P50), retrieved (P813),... too, as I said. It depends. After that, copy+paste with DuplicateReferences gadget to some other 'sourceable' facts. Again, although third option (using external id numbers 'directly' as reference) is "technically" feasible I'd say (from empirical and biased observation) is not a common procedure. Sure there is a reason for that. Or maybe there is not and I just haven't seen enough items. I don't know. Good luck with the proposal! I'm totally in. Strakhov (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the page say anywhere that 15/15-01098 is an ID and is supposed to be stable to describe this person? ChristianKl (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it is an article ID, not a person ID. There are (apparently) plans to extend the OBIN (Oxford Biography Index Number - see Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415)) system to the American National Biography, as it is a publication of Oxford University Press (under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies). If you read what it says here about OBIN, they say: "This OBIN is unique to that person; it is thus an invaluable part of any authority record for that person. As we expand the Biography Index, this number should unlock an increasing number of resources, each linked directly and unambiguously through the OBIN. [...] We would encourage anyone compiling a database of people to include the OBIN in each database record." OBINs are ID numbers for the subject of an article. The actual articles themselves also have DOIs, which seems obvious now I think about it, and means there is less of a need to worry about how to handle that sort of data. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Pinging ChristianKl. See this discussion: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/24#ODNB where it is said that the ODNB property as set up is not yet technically the OBIN (if I have that right?). Or was it originally set up one way and has already been converted? Not sure. I suppose the ANB one could be set up and similarly converted later? Pinging Andrew Gray to see if he is able to say how easy such conversion would be (see also the comment here). Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bit of confusion between ODNB IDs and OBINs in the early days. At the moment, we have an "ODNB ID" property which is functionally the same as the OBIN, but as Oxford has not yet systematically provided OBINs to anyone unless they also happen to be in the ODNB, this is a bit of a moot point :-)
I would recommend just going with the "15/15-01098"-type article identifier, as this is consistent with the way we handle all sorts of other resources, and accepting that we'll have duplication for some people (eg Washington, below). If Oxford later standardise these into the OBIN, we can get a lookup table from them and it will be fairly trivial to amalgamate. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other point to make is that some people will have articles across multiple Oxford University Press publications, but only one OBIN number. It is deliberately intended to allow people to access biographical material about a single person across multiple publications. In this case, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Q17565097) and American National Biography (Q465854). See also Oxford Biography Index (Q17037575). Some people have articles in both, some have articles in just one. Also not sure what the 'landing page' will be for people with articles in both. The way we have our URL generation set up, you would only be taken to one of them (ODNB or ANB), or could you be given a choice? Am trying to think of someone obvious who would be in both? Erm, George Washington (Q23) fits the bill. He has OBIN 101061288, and his ANB article is here, with the 'ID number' in this case being '02/02-00332'. No idea how stable that is, though. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expediting Olympic.org ID

I think we should expedite the creation of the property proposed in Wikidata:Property proposal/Olympic.org ID as the Olympics are current.

And we should consider a process for expediting other time-sensitive property proposals in future. Perhaps, three days, at least four supports and no more than one objection, and a notice on this page, with a justification? The bar might be lower for external IDs than for quantitative or relationship properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some questions about it. If you haven't found it useful before despite proposing dozens of properties, it's not clear why it would be urgent now.
--- Jura 08:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC
One "weak delete" (vs. five supports, at the time of writing) whose concerns have already been refuted. Your latter point is a non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is disagreement about whether my concerns are sufficient reason to oppose, but they have not been refuted. Questions about why you feel this property should be expedited are directly relevant to this conversation and not non sequiturs in the slightest. You have stated that you think it's important to create it quickly because the Olympics are current, but have not answered the question why that makes it urgent nor why it wasn't proposed earlier. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Questions about why [a] property should be expedited are directly relevant". I wasn't referring to one. As to the refutations, they're on the proposal page for anyone to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a general case, I think requirements should be something like:

  • A note on the proposal that expedited creation is being sought, with a justification (or link to justification elsewhere)
  • Message left here with a justification that does not result in consensus against expediting
  • All relevant wikiprojects notified of the proposal ({{Pingproject}} is fine for this)
  • Open at least three days after the message at Project Chat was left
  • At least four supports
  • Net support of at least 3
  • No open questions on the proposal
  • All reasons given for opposition responded to

I don't understand why external ID proposals would have a lower bar than any other proposals? Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ID properties are generally binary decisions with little to debate. The other types often have more nuanced discussion of how best to model data and relationships. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's little harm done by adding external ID's in contrast to the harm done by other bad property proposals that lock us into modeling data a certain way. ChristianKl (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've seen some external ID proposals generate debate, e.g. about how to represent them (such as one or multiple properties) and what use they bring and whether they are reliable or not, none of which seem binary decisions to me. The ones that are simple should have no problem reaching the normal bar (which really isn't very high at all) and the ones that aren't shouldn't be held to a lower standard than any other property imo. What are your thoughts though on the suggested requirements presented above? Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used - deliberately - the phrase "...generally binary decisions..." (emphasis added). I don't support a requirement to notify projects, and your final two points overcomplicate and invite ambiguity, but otherwise your proposals seem OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you support a requirement to notify projects? Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It requires the proposer to be aware of what projects exist, and which might claim interest on a proposal. It leaves the way open for disputes over the latter. It means unnecessary notifications for project members who are not interested in property proposals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has been open since 12 August I suggest we create it now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FEI ID

Wikidata:Property proposal/FEI ID should be expedited for the same reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at this proposal's discussion page regarding this suggestion (before I saw this section). Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff about railways

I've several questions regarding the relationships between railway stations. I'm specifically working with the Pearl River Delta at the moment, but I'm certain these can apply generally.

  1. What would be the appropriate connections to make between Shenzhen Railway Station (Q837327), Luohu Station (Q843947), Luohu Port (Q877115), Lo Wu Control Point (Q23498332), and Lo Wu station (Q15169)?
  2. Is it necessary to have connecting line (P81) as a property of a railway station and as a qualifier to an adjacent station (P197)? (This question also applies to connecting service (P1192).)
  3. In a similar vein, does having one of the aforementioned connection properties require the inclusion of the other?
  4. Should two metro 'lines' be considered 'services' if they share the same trackage at any point? (Here I'm thinking of The Loop (Q2225459) and much of the Washington Metro (Q171221), but also of the concurrency of Line 3 (Q1326495) and Line 4 (Q1326504).)
  5. What's the hierarchy between metro/rail systems, their component lines, and their stations? Are stations part of (P361) lines part of (P361) systems? (Or are stations and lines both part of (P361) systems?)
  6. How would direction (P560) work for rail lines that are in loops? (Should we just pick two or three stations and use them for orientation?)

The property discussion pages are not terribly active, so I'm hoping there's some sort of existing consensus on these matters. Mahir256 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikidata:WikiProject Railways. Its mainpage is quite empty (feel free to fill it), but the talk is alive.--Jklamo (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The simple questions to answer are 3 and 6. For 3, yes, they should be considered separate services if they are presented as separate services in reliable sources (e.g. system maps clearly treat the District line (Q211265) and Circle line (Q210321) as separate services at e.g. Cannon Street station (Q800615) even though they share the same tracks).
For 6, I'd use clockwise direction (Q16726164)/anticlockwise direction (Q6692036) or whichever cardinal direction is travelled in to reach the next station (e.g. the Circle line (Q210321) from Cannon Street station (Q800615) to Mansion House tube station (Q1477336) is west (Q679)), depending what reliable sources describe it as. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
connecting line (P81) is defined as a qualifier, rather than a "main property". Danrok (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

changing thousand separator

Is it possible to choose a different character for the thousand and decimal separator? Both '.' and ',' look very stupidconfusing imo when used as thousand separator, so I'd prefer a space (preferably U+202F), but couldn't find any option to change that (for me as a user setting of course, don't want to force it on anyone). A CSS class on the separator would propably suffice. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nenntmichruhigip: This should be handled by your language preference. Which language are you using? For example, if I switch from English to Italian, I get spaces instead of commas. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nenntmichruhigip: Wenn du die deutsche Oberfläche benutzt, dann kriegst du auch deutsche Dezimaltrennzeichen.--Börsensocke (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of Börsensocke's posting for the other users: You can get the german separators by changing to the german interface. Actually I am using the german language preference, and yes it gets even more confusing when changing to english :-) But the german language preference makes the separators not exactly "german" (which would be a small space for thousands), but what's the guideline on the german wikipedia and common in economics(?) (point for thousands). So, yes, changing to french or itanlian makes the numbers nice, but then I don't understand the texts and the search won't find stuff :-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #222

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

New gadget to sort the statements on items

Hello everybody,

As the sorting of the statements on a item page had issues for a while, I'm glad to annouce that there's now a gagdet for it! Gadget-statementSort.js sort all the statements of an item, based on a properties ordered list.

This gadget have been created by Ladsgroup, using a previous script writen by Soulkeeper. Thanks a lot for your work!

You can now enable this gadget in your preferences. If you have any question about the gadget or if you want to suggest some modifications on the properties list, don't hesitate to ask Ladsgroup or leave a message below.

Bests, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great gadget! @Ladsgroup: It would be nice if I could completely overwrite the default property list by a self-maintained list in a custom .js page in my userspace. Could you implement something like that? Thanks and regards MisterSynergy (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made phab:T143383 to keep track of it :) Best Amir (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Is this gadget restricted to special browsers, or what am I looking for? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMDE recruiting a PHP backend software developer

Have you ever wanted to join the Wikidata development team? Maybe this needs your attention ;)

Wikimedia Deutschland is looking for a PHP Software Developer to work on programming and maintaining backend functionality of Wikidata and other services. He/she will be responsible for devising, implementing and testing new features in line with the product plan.

You can find all the information here. Don't hesitate to spread the word if you know someone who could be interested!

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q9176184 to be merged with Q8152009

Category:Weapons by manufacturer (Q9176184) + Category:Weapons by manufacturer (Q8152009) per similarity. -- 93.73.36.17 13:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Large upcoming data import

Just a heads-up: In 2014, I created ~40K items for Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in the UK. This list has grown to ~44K buildings by now. As discussed here, we are preparing to import the remaining Grade II buildings, using a current list from National Heritage. That would be ~342K new items. You can see an example of what these items will look like at Morgan Hall, The Lawns (Q26263429). Unless there are serious objections, I will commence item creation this evening or tomorrow. The import will be single-thread, so as to not overload Wikidata, and will be bot-flagged (because RC). --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, thanks for these huge donations. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid news. I look forward to working on this important data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Import has commenced after positive feedback :-) View progress here (may be mixed with other unrelated edits). --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating these! Hopefully it will inspire some people to use the geograph image import on Commons to illustrate them. Jane023 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WD-FIST recently gained the ability to match image-less items and Commons images via coordinates (100m radius). Pure coincidence, surely. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnus Manske: happy to see that other countries are working on historic buildings too. National Heritage List for England number (P1216) has some constraint violations on Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P1216. Do you plan to work on that too? Some are quite easy to fix, like listed buildings in Christleton (Q15979145) where some bot added a bunch of identifiers. Multichill (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix some of these in 2014, but someone said since (in this example) I can't make a query of Listed buildings in Christleton (because it is quite hard to automatically find that level of location data), it should stay in there. I do disagree with that; maybe we should try to get village-level information through some combination of the location name in the raw data (which is ambiguous), the larger region (which is not), and the coordinates. --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to include the lowest level of admin territory (civil parish) rather than the higher ones of district or county? BTW Christleton is a civil parish... Robevans123 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it would be better. But on the "lowest level", there are many places that share the same name. And even if a Wikidata search only turns up a single one, how do I know it's the only one, and not just missing items for the others? National Heritage data doesn't come annotated with Wikidata item numbers, you know... --Magnus Manske (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now trying to use more fine-grained located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). I was careful to get it right, but with these numbers, there is always a chance of some of them being wrong. Nothing that can't be fixed, but be aware just in case. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - great to have the extra detail. Sorry for the extra work -:) Robevans123 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The example item doesn't contain "instance of" building. I think it would be great if you assign an instance of to the items you created.
A heritage status can change. It would be good if you add a "retrieved" source qualifier that tells the reader when the statement got created. It would also be helpful if reference url is filled as "https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1103344" for the example item.ChristianKl (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on Interface Stability: final feedback wanted

Hello all,

repeated discussions about what constitutes a breaking change has prompted us, the Wikidata development team, to draft a policy on interface stability. The policy is intended to clearly define what kind of change will be announced when and where.

A draft of the policy can be found at Wikidata:Stable Interface Policy. Please comment on the talk page.

Note that this policy is not about the content of the Wikidata site, it's a commitment by the development team regarding the behavior of the software running on wikidata.org. It is intended as a reference for bot authors, data consumers, and other users of our APIs.

We plan to announce this as the development team's official policy on Monday, August 22.

-- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in the future

What is the current consensus about including dates that are in the future? I thought that these could always change, so we shouldn't include them. See [3] and [4]. Ping Máté. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, future dates should be accepted for certain porperties, if they have reference (see examples). If they turn out not to happen they can be depreciated (with reference). – Máté (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the linked case I think it would make sense to have some sort of qualifer like "sourcing circumstances : planned" and a source of the official announcement of the date. The fact that the date was announced is interesting information. In cases the date change it can then be deprecated. ChristianKl (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

relegated (P2882)

Hello. I need a qualifier for relegated (P2882) to show the championship the team relegated to. For example,

⟨ 2015–16 Premier League (Q19346732)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ relegated (P2882) View with SQID ⟨ Newcastle United F.C. (Q18716)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
to Search ⟨ Q24067533 ⟩

. I need a qualifier for "to". (I have the same problem with promoted (P2881)). Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is "lower level" and "higher level" that can be applied to leagues. Oddly the season you mention doesn't link to its league and the league doesn't include that property.
    --- Jura 14:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jura Lower level and Higher level are for the league pyramid for the same period.

Another example.

⟨ 2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ relegated (P2882) View with SQID ⟨ Pafos FC (Q17442894)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
to Search ⟨ Q24067920 ⟩
⟨ 2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ league level below (P2500) View with SQID ⟨ 2015–16 Cypriot Second Division (Q19905070)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

Xaris333 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violations

Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2881

"Type sports league (Q623109)" violations: Can somebody explain me what is wrong?

Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P393

"Type version, edition or translation (Q3331189)" violations: Can somebody explain me what is wrong?

Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance: I have no idea about the first problem. The second one, however, seems to be caused by an improper type constraint on Property talk:P393. If it can be used for events, it should not expect items of version, edition or translation (Q3331189) or subclasses thereof, which is a term related to books and publications. The type constraint needs to be extended to events, or we need so split P393 to an “event-P393” and a “publication-P393” —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using this for two things as distinct as publications and event series doesn't really make sense - annual events aren't "editions" of each other! It would make a lot more sense to split out the event uses into a new property. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again on the first problem: I tried this, because it seemed as if the Template:Constraint:Type usage on Property talk:P2881 was not done correctly. You need to wait for the next covi page update now… —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

participant (P710) or participating team (P1923)

Hello. For a league like 2015–16 Premier League (Q19346732) should I use participant (P710) or participating team (P1923)? Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you aim to add team items here, use participating team (P1923). The other one should IMO be redefined and limited to values of person type, and a discussion about the “inverse constraint” on participant (P710) would also be necessary. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MisterSynergy See 2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304). I used participant (P710). Is it wrong? Xaris333 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is technically not wrong, but participating team (P1923) was later defined and is more specific, it even was specifically made for the purpose you look for. To my opinion you should always use the most specific property available, and only go with the generic ones (as for instance participant (P710)) if there is no other way. Unfortunately, participant (P710)’s talk page still recommends to use it for teams, although there is the other one for more than a year now. So: P710 needs to redefined, as I said, or at least massively updated… But this is a general problem of Wikidata at the current stage. We drown in new properties, and we fail to properly maintain old ones and to define how to use properties correctly. Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MisterSynergy Thanks. Do you know if I can change the property with a bot? Or to ask for the change? Xaris333 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that you can just exchange the property and keep all values. You would probably need to add identical data with the new property, and then remove the old one. I would also recommend to team up with Wikidata:WikiProject Association football, and to define best practices for use cases such as yours within this project. Since association football is a really large topic here, they might also have experience with bots. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all!!! Xaris333 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done by User:PLbot. Xaris333 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! Thanks for sharing this knowledge here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leauge Points system

Hello. Is there a property to show the point system of a championship? For example in association football there were point system like 3-1-0, 3-2-1, 2-1-0. Xaris333 (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there isn’t something like that. The different point systems could get structural items, but which property can be used here? Template:Sports properties (good overview, but typically not fully complete) does not indicate anything useful here… —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MisterSynergy We have the item three points for a win (Q1431533). Maybe I will propose for a property. Xaris333 (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

menswear vs womenswear

I just added a picture to the item ferreruolo (Q5445313) and I would like to be able to query the items for menswear vs womenswear. Many clothing items are unisex, but there are lots of specific items that are not. How do I specify that? Thx. Jane023 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: create structural items “menswear” and “womenswear” and properly define them using P279 and labels/descriptions in as many languages as possible. Then subclass them with subclass of (P279) on the items you want to describe. It would be useful it this is documented at a suitable place, but there is no Wikidata:WikiProject Clothes or something similar yet (see Category:WikiProjects). —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I think it needs to be more generic though because it would also be nice to have swimwear, childrenswear etc. I think we need Wikidata:Fashion where clothes and jewelry can be sub-genres. I will see what is out there on enwiki first. Jane023 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is already swimsuit (Q212989); and of course there can be multiple P279 statements on an item. So bikini (Q14090) could for instance subclass “womenswear” and swimsuit (Q212989) at the same time. Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion sounds good as well, so if you can gather some two or three more editors… —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T44325

Examples: Tasley (Q24668011) and Tasley (Q24668012). Not a good sign. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikidata:True duplicates --Pasleim (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a known problem, sadly it's not trivial to fix. The cause is that bots often double post entity creation requests to the API, so that both entities are created at nearly the same time, leading to our uniqueness constraints not working. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing up concepts

Should a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) be used together with for example subclass of (P279) and country (P17), like on Abay District (Q364858)? I have a feeling that this causes conflicts and these concepts should be separated. We've had a similar discussion about templates earlier. Ping Infovarius. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what we should do with pages (disambigs? set indices? lists?) like from ru:Категория:Страницы разрешения неоднозначностей:Населённые пункты? They have obvious properties like "containing settlements with the same name" and I am trying to mark it in Wikidata. --Infovarius (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are list or set index, but ru.wiki mark them as disambiguation. This makes no sense because disambiguation page don't must limit the content. The more correct solution is that ru.wiki change the kind of page. --ValterVB (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently (so my understanding) Russian Wikipedia uses disambiguation pages for all sorts of things. As these pages are linked from items with P31:Q4167410, all sorts of statements are added to such items, with the insistance that this "applies to part" ruwiki (a page could include a description of a capital, so the item would receive P31=capital).
    If pages on ruwiki are topical articles that combine various subjects, they should probably go on separate items and use some sort of P31 statement with "set index" and statements linking to the various topics combined. Merely adding this to items that are used for other things makes these items less useful for their original purpose.
    --- Jura 05:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Izno: no. Because a disambiguation item can list every kind of things. If a Wiki have the same disambiguation page but on their page they have also a different thing (for example a movie, a book a band with the same name) how we manage it? If you limit the content of a disambiguation, you have a list like this Lapwing (Q22293794) --ValterVB (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lapwing (Q22293794) is a good example! Yes, it is called "set index page", but it is a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) too. So I suppose "set index pages" are a subclass of "disambig pages". And these pages also can be regarded as classes (with all appropriate statements), see discussion about greek characters. There are no such type of disambig templates in Russian Wikipedia yet. May be it's a solution - to create such type and move some such "disambigs" to "set indices"? --Infovarius (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From en help: « A set index article is not a disambiguation page » and « (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name » so no, I don't think that a "set index pages" is a subclass of disambiguation but is a subclass of "list". --ValterVB (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are afraid of, User:ValterVB, but I think usefullness is above this. See for example Mother (film) (Q4285420). It obviously contains only films. Why shouldn't we mark it as class of films? --Infovarius (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Example: Mother (film) (Q4285420) is a disambiguation on ru.wiki, so it can be merged with others disambiguation item, for example with Mother (Q348342) (don't consider for now that already exist an ru sitelink) but this disambiguation page in en, or it or fr aren't about the movie but are about movie, song, videogame, play so don't have sense add mark it with a class of film. --ValterVB (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are speaking about en/it/fr disambigs in Mother (Q348342), while ru:Мать (фильм) is a useful page itself. And it can have specific properties. --Infovarius (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's an example to explain the concept. I said "don't consider for now that already exist an ru sitelink", in this case, normally the page, of ru.wiki "ru:Мать (фильм) would be added to Mother (Q348342). If you want an real example you can see for example at The Great Gatsby (Q398510) the page in ru.wiki it's only a list of the film, it isn't possible add something of different, but if I check on other wiki I can see novel, soundtrack, movie and opera. --ValterVB (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
other examples Submission (Q2361990) Goldeneye (Q398775) Night Train (Q399204) --ValterVB (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ItemDisambiguation limit at 100

The display limit for Special:ItemDisambiguation is set at 100. In cases of some ordinary names, e.g. John Campbell, this limit may be attained, or nearly so, for what is a reasonable request. In other words using such a page for normal disambiguation may be close to failing, and will fail as more items and aliases are added.

Could the number of hits be displayed? Could there be some fallback to a second page? It is highly desirable that this Special page should function as the global disambiguation equivalent for en:w:John Campbell, for example. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a work-around you can use this SPARQL query. --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

enabling Wikidata data access in user language

Hello folks,

We're currently working on enabling Wikidata data access in user language. That means that all functionality that we provide, in order to make use of the data on Wikidata, will be using the users language for localization, so that each user can see the content in their set language. That means, that templates and Lua modules currently on functions outputting English values per default, will need to be adopted.

The following things will be affected:

  • The property parser function
  • mw.wikibase.getEntity/mw.wikibase.getEntityObject: Fallback labels/ descriptions in the user's language are included, if there are no labels/ descriptions in the user's language.
  • mw.wikibase.label: Returns labels in the user's language (or a fallback thereof), rather than English
  • mw.wikibase.description: Returns descriptions in the user's language (or a fallback thereof), rather than English
  • mw.wikibase.renderSnak/mw.wikibase.renderSnaks: Snaks will be rendered in the user's language, rather than in English
  • mw.wikibase.entity:formatPropertyValues: The statements will be rendered in the user's language, rather than in English

This new feature is already testable on beta Wikidata and the deployment on Wikidata is planned on August 29. If you encounter any issue, please let us know. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): It didn't even hit me until just now (even though I have the phabricator project on watch)--most clients have implemented the call to the object as providing a link to the object using the object's label, rather than a link to the language-of-wiki's-object label. The change seems highly problematic from that point of view and a week to fix the 100+ modules which have implemented the functionality is... quite frankly, just a bad idea. This needs a wider announcement, likely to the talk pages associated with Module:Wikidata (Q12069631). --Izno (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(And I might be completely wrong on the scale of the issue, but a week to turn this feature still seems like a bad idea.) --Izno (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: This will only affect Wikidata, this feature is not supposed to be enabled on any mono-lingual wiki. The changes in question are already effective on other multilingual wikis: commons, meta, testwikidata. I hope that helps you judge the impact of this change. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's much more sane than I thought. :D --Izno (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To move certain items from Q741745 to Q26331278

Discussion moved to Talk:Q26331278#Not to be confused with booster (Q741745)
✓ Done. -- 93.73.36.17 20:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A gadget for Wikidata completeness management

Dear Wikidata community,

we are happy to announce the next release of COOL-WD: a Completeness Tool for Wikidata, packed with new features, inspired by the engaging discussion with you all on the first release [1].

The main purpose of COOL-WD is to allow to create and manage completeness information about Wikidata, such as "Complete for all Switzerland's cantons" and "Complete for all of Obama's children". While previously one had to access an external tool to add and view Wikidata completeness information at http://cool-wd.inf.unibz.it/, now a user script is available to enable adding and viewing completeness information directly inside Wikidata [2].

When the script is enabled, properties annotated as complete are marked by a green box, while all other properties are marked in yellow. To state that a certain property is complete, one can simply click on the yellow box to make it turn green. To add a reference URL for the completeness, one can click the small '(i)' icon next to the property name to add the reference URL. An example screenshot is available at [3].

Several other new features are:

- Completeness analytics: show the progress in data completion wrt class of objects of interest (http://cool-wd.inf.unibz.it/?p=aggregation), example screenshot at [4].

- Query completeness diagnostics: give an explanation (which completeness statements are used, and how) whenever (in)-complete query answers are given (http://cool-wd.inf.unibz.it/?p=query), example screenshot at [5].

- Linked data publication of completeness statements, for instance, RDF description of the completeness statement of all cantons in Switzerland: http://cool-wd.inf.unibz.it/resource/statement-Q39-P150

- RDF dump of over 10,000 completeness statements in COOL-WD collected from various sources: http://completeness.inf.unibz.it/rdf-export/

Last but not least, a description of these features is to appear as a paper at COLD 2016 Workshop, which currently can be downloaded [6].

The tool is still a prototype, so we very much look forward to your feedback regarding how useful you consider the tool, and your ideas for conceptual or technical improvements!

Best,

Fariz, Simon, Rido, and Werner (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy)

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2016-March/008319.html

[2] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Fadirra/coolwd.js

[3] http://completeness.inf.unibz.it/coolwd-screenshots/gadget.JPG

[4] http://completeness.inf.unibz.it/coolwd-screenshots/analytics.png

[5] http://completeness.inf.unibz.it/coolwd-screenshots/diagnostics.png

[6] http://completeness.inf.unibz.it/coolwd-screenshots/paper_cameraReady.pdf

Fadirra (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what happen if a green statement gets changed/removed ? Maybe the completeness should be marked for review, to see if the modification is a vandalism or a real correction ? --Melderick (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Currently, when a green (= complete) statement is clicked, then it will turn back to yellow (= potentially incomplete). This means basically that the statement is removed. I agree that marking would be a nice feature to add, as well as say a log/history feature for changes wrt. the statement and also voting feature for statements. - Fadirra (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonator is being weird, giving multiples of family members

Hi

Not sure whether its a problem with Reasonator or Wikidata but Reasonator is giving Nelson Mandela 3 copies of every family member.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. It is still the only reasonable way of looking at the Wikidata data. Sad to say.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GerardM, so its a problem with Reasonator? --John Cummings (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See [5], it doesn't seem to have much attention. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thanks Sjoerddebruin. John Cummings (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sjoerddebruin The same can be said of the attention given to usability of Wikidata data. It does not get much attention and Reasonator is far better than anything else that is on offer. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images and image qualifiers

I was wanting to improve the image content for various taxon pages, but need some guidance for what to do. On Wollemia nobilis (Q190510) I already replaced a very poor low-resolution pic with a better one (File:Wollemia nobilis full.jpg), but wanted to add a qualifier like 'young tree' or 'whole plant' (or similar), and then also to add File:Wollemia nobilis M1.JPG with the qualifier 'female part' and File:Wollemia nobilis cone.jpg with the qualifier 'male part'. How do I proceed? Or is there a limit on how many images are wanted? - MPF (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to use media legend (P2096) as a qualifier. --Melderick (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is media legend media legend (P2096), but this is unstructured data--I think the use case you are looking for, this will be sufficient. From a metadata perspective, you should probably wait for the Commons metadata rollout, coming to a Commons near you SoonTM. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen applies to part (P518) used for this. It's more machine-readable than P2096. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and Wikipedia sourced P91 statements

What to do with unsourced and Wikipedia sourced sexual orientation (P91) statements? This really troubles me. The property has been used 3613 times, 2824 don't contain sources. Don't know how much have Wikipedia as source. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

613 has imported from Wikimedia project (P143). Count. --Edgars2007 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is the same problem for religion or worldview (P140) --ValterVB (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If no source, delete. Snipre (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No: If no source, find one and add it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't add sensible data on person without source. If some users add this data but don't add source makes an error. I think that the data is to be deleted. --ValterVB (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no source and the claim is plausible then look for a source. If you find a source, add it. If you don't find a source after looking and the claim is contentious or potentially so and/or your search was extensive and thorough then remove it. If the claim is not plausible, remove it. We really need a way of flagging the remaining cases where someone has done no or only a cursory search. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can force someone to look for sources, but Wikimedia Foundation, on biographies of living, asks you to add the sources, so if there are no sources for these data should be deleted. We can't keep sensible data indefinitely without source. --ValterVB (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1. WP require sources and WD aims to provide sourced data, so if people don't want to play the game, their contributions have to be deleted as useless and potentially subject to conflict. Snipre (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So by this logic all statements on items about living people without a reference should be deleted (maybe except external IDs). I see no point in singling out this specific property. If it has to go, all does, or we accept that statements need to be decided about one by one (like Thryduulf said). And—still by this logic—the possible automatic statement deletion would not concern items about people who have passed away (still, talking about all properties, not only P91). – Máté (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the data are problematic, but certainly the data regarding religion or sexuality are more delicate and must be sourced. --ValterVB (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd add at least age, gender, residence, ethnic group, birth name etc. to the list of potentially just as sensitive data as sexual orientation and religion are. – Máté (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think it is possible to define different priorities for properties in terms of how required sources generally are. Something like religion is pretty high up in most cases (I don't think it vital that a Catholic cardinal has source for religion, a US presidential candidate on the other hand probably is), however a handedness (P552) statement is almost never going to be controversial and so I don't think we should remove them without having looked for sources. External identifiers are almost always going to be self-sourcing, so we can treat them as completely uncontroversial. I'd suggest levels:
  1. always required, will be deleted if a source is not provided within a short time of the statement being added (should only be used for a very few properties and almost never when used for deceased people);
  2. almost always required, will normally be deleted when applied to living people or recently deceased people if a source is not provided but exceptions are possible based on common sense, especially for deceased people. (more than level 1, but not too many)
  3. Should be provided, statements should be accompanied by a source but they will not be routinely deleted without consideration of the circumstances (this should be default for non-external id properties)
  • low priority, statements should be accompanied by a source but they will not normally be deleted unless verification has failed or the statement is both implausible and applied to a living person (only things that will rarely be controversial should be at this level)
  • self-sourcing, no independent source is required (probably only applies to external identifiers). Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
we need a team to source statements. the people who periodically drive by and suggest statement deletion, are not collaborating and improving the data. "so if people don't want to play the game", they can take their deletion game elsewhere. there is no consensus for required references. Slowking4 (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Languages to add

Syriac I want to add the name in original language property to Q203179 for the text "ܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ܕܐܬܘܖ̈ܝܐ" in Syriac, but I cannot add text in syc. Why is this list of values missing so many possible options? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible languages are missing for monolingual text. You can create a ticket for it in phabricator or request addition on WD:DEV. Mbch331 (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

local Wikibase

I'm trying to use Wikibase in my local wiki and I am half way done. But I have problems still (I don't know if it's better to ask at developers forum?):

  • After some change I cannot edit or create claims. Specifically: for creation I click "edit", then I choose right property and get eternal "loading sign" instead of input field; for editing - just nothing happened after clicking "edit". Editing through API with my bot is possible though.
  • How to edit label and description in other languages? I've installed Babel extension, imported LabelLister gadget but nevertheless I see only 1 language.
  • Even in that language I cannot edit label+desc+aliases simultaneuosly: only one of them is saved at a time, then reload of a page is needed to save another.

Can anyone help? --Infovarius (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoo man: probably better for a dev to look at this one. --Izno (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: I'm quickly replying point by point:
  1. Make sure you are running Wikibase master and MediaWiki master. Do you get any JS errors in this case? If so, please report them.
  2. Installing Babel and editing your user page should be enough. Please note, that you will need to run jobs (run maintenance/runJobs.php in MediaWiki's root directory) in order for your user pages categories to be written to the database, so that Babel can pick them up.
  3. See #1
Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answer. I've installed master version of Wikibase and get "Fatal error: Class 'Wikibase\DataModel\Entity\ItemId' not found in C:\xampp\apps\mediawiki\htdocs\extensions\Wikibase\lib\WikibaseLib.entitytypes.php on line 37". Then I revert Wikibase upgrade.
I've copied MediaWiki 1.27 over my 1.26. Now I see all required labels/desc/aliases(!), but editing leads to error "SyntaxError: Unexpected token < in JSON at position 0".
After rolling master version of Wikibase again I get "Fatal error: Class 'Wikibase\Lib\DataTypeDefinitions' not found in C:\xampp\apps\mediawiki\htdocs\extensions\Wikibase\repo\includes\WikibaseRepo.php on line 300". I revert Wikibase again.
In console I have: 1) Unknown dependency: jquery.uls.data; 2) ReferenceError: $ is not defined(anonymous function) @ Item:Q2:935 --Infovarius (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you run composer update for both MediaWiki and Wikibase after updating them? For MediaWiki you will also need to run maintenance/update.php after applying the update. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and purge

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T143435

I noticed the behaviour of the merge gadget changed. It now asks for confirmation after merging to purge the page. This is a bug and I filed Phab:T143435 for this. Multichill (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikidata:Contact the development team#Purge with confim. --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Count

Hello. Is there a way to find how many unique item are linked to Alki Larnaca F.C. (Q658131) that has for property subclass of (P279) the item Cypriot Cup (Q245970)? Or is there a way to find how many wikidata pages of the articles of w:el:Κατηγορία:Κύπελλο Κύπρου (ποδόσφαιρο ανδρών) are in Alki Larnaca F.C. (Q658131)? Xaris333 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy method: Special:WhatLinksHere/Q658131. More complex queries are possible with the Wikidata Query Service, but this would be something you’d need to learn first. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchical data examples

I am trying to find how hierarchical information is stored in wikidata? Most of the Olympics Sports pages have a Tournament Draw or Bracket like this or this. I would like to add this "who played who, at which stage" info, but I am a bit confused whether such info gets stored. The docs say lists and infoboxes are the main focus, so is this something that will be handled later? If its already being done could someone please point at a tutorial or examples for a beginner. Thanks! Quil1 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Nomination

Hello.Please subscribe to The first Arabic user's nomination on Wikidata.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query Service to PetScan

Hi, this works in Query Service but it does not work when I copy it to PetScan. How can I run the same query on PetScan?--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The output needs to start with ?item. This is the only output that will be used, so you could remove "label". Sample.
--- Jura 16:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium life

aquarium fish (Q1448518) = "aquarium life" aka "aquarium animals" = "ornamental fish" is a categoría de Wikimedia aka Wikimedia list article? --79.243.94.21 00:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's a subclass of (P279) of fish (Q152), whose topic's main category (P910) is Category:Aquarium fish (Q8084627) and its Commons category (P373) -> Category:Aquarium fish. Strakhov (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Property for listing teams than an individual has coached/managed

I was unable to find a property that could be used to specify the sports teams than an individual has coached/managed. I do not consider it ideal to use P:54 in such a context as it relates more to the teams an individual is associated with as a player, not as a coach. Does the property I am looking for need to be created or is there one that I simply have not found yet? Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/head coach of is currently open, you may wish to comment there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I properly use Population property?

I try to use it but however, it always has a plus minus sign with "1". How do I fix this? MechQuester (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---Marcelius Martirosianas,sukure toks epistemologinis gamtuos reiškinys-tai; |||||||||m^3=n^3;||| kad surasti 'm' reikia žinuoti 'n';ą)--metodika 5**| n+4|=5n; 6**5n-n=4; 7***4n=4; 8*n=4/4;|9*n=1;

m^3=m+3;|n^3=n+3| [m+3=n+3]; [m+3=1+3] {[m+3]=4;} m=4-3=1; |||||||||||||||||||||||| 456*m=1,n=1,|||||||||||||||||||||||||| TRIGONOMETRIJA:;;;;;||||||\SINxxx^3n+1+COSxxx^3n+1=4n;|||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||""""""""""""""|SINx^e^x-1+COSx^e^x-1=1;""""""""|||||||||||||||||897****7n+2=8n||||||||||||----MODEL-------------,,,,,,,-------epistematematicaltrigonometricy------------|||||||||||

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=368705277"