Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2024/07

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jon DeVries

Q104346704 (duplicate: Q111549344) RIMOLA (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

→ ← Merged✓ Done
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. RVA2869 (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Named after

we have the property "named after" which ban have the value John Smith. Is there a property to use at John Smith to show "things named after this person"? RAN (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If such a property would exist you would see it listed at named after (P138). We generally avoid inverse properties and I can't think of a good reason to have the property "things named after this person". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if this would be useful for you but there is a gadget that you can enable in preferences called "relateditems" which "Adds a button to the bottom of item pages to display inverse statements." So would show all things named after the person as well any other properties that link to the item Piecesofuk (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Merging Q117208646 (exercise & fitness product) into Q352222 (exercise equipment)?

The former seems to be generated from Google's product taxonomy, but overall seems to refer to the same concept. The subgraphs of both terms are overlapping but not identical, so perhaps a clean-up would be welcome. Any thoughts? Alcinos (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any fitness products that are not exercise equipment? Trade (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Fitbits and other activity tracker (Q16001686) perhaps. Not my area, but all of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Q117208646 look like they could fit in the other category Vicarage (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Activity trackers are a good example, one could argue that they are indeed fitness products but not really exercise equipment (although the link to either concept is currently missing in the page you linked). Other elements that could be in the same case: fitness app (Q25104632), smart scale (Q116454756), perhaps also massage gun (Q110997596).
In the light of this, here is a refined proposal:
- rename exercise & fitness product (Q117208646) to "fitness product", and make exercise equipment (Q352222) a subclass of it
- move all current sub-classes of exercise & fitness product (Q117208646) to be sub-classes of exercise equipment (Q352222) (as Vicarage noted, currently all of them seem to be appropriate sub-classes
- add links for the remaining "fitness products" that are not "exercise equipment", such as activity tracker and the other listed above
How does that sound? Alcinos (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Other proposed "fitness products" that are not "exercise equipment":
- heart rate monitor (Q925303) although that one is currently listed as an exercise equipment, not sure if I agree
- yoga pants (Q8054336) (perhaps it would be nice to have a "workout clothes" class? I can't seem to find one currently) Alcinos (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
sportswear (Q645292) includes exercise in description Vicarage (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
It may be too broad to be a subclass of "fitness product". Eg sports jersey (Q2623418) is a sportswear but likely wouldn't be a good (indirect) subclass of "fitness product" Alcinos (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Bogus disease English aliases prefixed with "obsolete" - cleanup needed

A large number (thousands?) of pages for diseases and classes of diseases currently have bogus aliases in English "obsolete X", where X is usually the main English label. For example, hemophilia (Q134003) has the alias "obsolete hemophilia". Likewise, rinderpest (Q157008) has alias "obsolete rinderpest" (though in a sense it actually is obsolete!). Some have variations, e.g. chronic pancreatitis (Q1996053) has alias "obsolete relapsing pancreatitis".

These seem to have been added by a bot trying to import an external taxonomy in 2020. Example of a bad revision: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q194435&oldid=1313119769

How should these be cleaned up? Can a bulk query be used to find them all?

73.223.72.200 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #634

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-07-01. Please help Translate.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • DifoolBot 4 Task(s) - Split single references containing multiple reference URLs into multiple references.
    • Bot Bozze Task(s) - Add sitelinks to itwiki draft articles after they've been moved to the main namespace.
  • New request for comments: Spelling convention for labels and descriptions in English - RfC started 2024-06-25. This RfC requests feedback and input for finding consistency in spelling convention as English has multiple regional variations.

Events

  • Past: The Lexicodays 2024 was an online event designed to offer a discussion space for the Wikidata community about Lexicographical Data. An archive of some of the slides and session recordings are here c:Category:Lexicodays 2024. More will be added as they become available.
  • Upcoming:
    • The next Wikidata+Wikibase office hours will take place on Wednesday, 16:00 UTC on Wednesday, 10th July 2024 (18:00 Berlin time) in the Wikidata Telegram group. The Wikidata and Wikibase office hours are online events where the development team presents what they have been working on over the past quarter, and the community is welcome to ask questions and discuss important issues related to the development of Wikidata and Wikibase.
    • Talk to the Search Platform / Query Service Team—July 3, 2024
    • Botany-focused Wikidata online workshop online as part of the #IBC2024. Date: Tuesday 9th July at 9pm NZST (GMT+12) / 11 am central Europe. Register here!

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • The second iteration of the Wikidata:Open Online Course has begun. Class will continue until August 11. Whether you're a beginner taking your first steps, an individual in need of a refresher on Wikidata concepts, or a seasoned trainer looking to level up your skills - this course is right for you.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • EntitySchemas:
    • We worked around an issue where EntitySchema pages were no longer considered “content” and had become unsearchable (phab:T368010)
    • We prepared for the release of the new datatype on July 2nd.
  • mul language code: We are working on the last remaining blocker before rolling out the first stage to Wikidata (phab:T362917)
  • Wikibase REST API: We are continuing to rework API errors (phab:T366911, phab:T366239)

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

The wiki is now in read-only mode

"Failed to save due to an error." and "The wiki is now in read-only mode." pop up. Why? Eurohunter (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Apparently there were some brief spikes of replication lag around the time you posted that message; when this happens, the wiki may automatically put itself into read-only mode temporarily until the database has caught up again. Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Implementing Orphanet Data into Wikipedia

Orphanet is an important reference within wikipedia with over 1000 refs. Recently, they changed their data structure, thus the former Template:Orphaned does no longer work. I got a file with relevant changes I would like to be implemented. Zieger M (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zieger M Hi, can you share the file publicly, so that I (or others) can have a look and decide if we're able to implement the change? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, how can I share it? Zieger M (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Zieger M If it is a table file, maybe you can upload somewhere and share a link? Ideally, with properly labelled columns so that we understand what changes to what :-). Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
"upload somewhere"? Never done, don't know where to. Sorry Zieger M (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
https://www.mediafire.com/file/uimhjnvs9g4uf49/Linkliste+Orphanet_Original.xlsx/file Zieger M (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Zieger M Hi, I checked the file and I think I now better understand what you mean. In fact, the change does not have anything to do with Wikidata - you just want to properly format its links to Orphanet. I think that you only need to replace the URL string "https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/Disease_Search.php?lng=DE&data_id=" at de:Template:Orphanet with "https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/". Isn't that right? You can do it locally in Dewiki. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata Question

Hi Wikipedia, I have two concerns regarding data for Blic, daily newspaper from Serbia. I have tried entering publication interval and for some reason it does not let me publish it. Also, I have tried editing their social media information and it did not let me. For both of them, it does not let me publish changes. Can you tell me why ? Боки ✉ 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What does it say? Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ymblanter it doesnt say anything.
Basically, when I try and change it, publish button is blanked so I cant click on it. Боки ✉ 18:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
If you enter say "1 week" in the field for publication interval then the check-mark can't be clicked. Unit goes into a separate field. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that this item is linked not only as an antiseptic but also for many other medical topics. Its description only mentioned "antiseptic" and I've added the prevention and treatment of iodine deficiency, based on its page linked from WikiProjectMed. The mistake may arise from the fact that it's disambiguated in the English- (and several other) language Wikipedia(s) as "iodine (medical use)". I think all other medical uses (e.g. radioactive iodine therapy (Q13233408)) should link to either to iodine as an element (iodine (Q1103)), or to a new item created for this purpose, but the antiseptic (and possibly the deficiency-preventing) use shouldn't be conflated with the radioactive or other medical means of using it. Adam78 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adam78 Is iodine as antiseptic in any way chemically different from the iodine element? If not, all such links should point to iodine (Q1103) and Q28196266 should instead be facet of (P1269) of iodine (Q1103) or something of that sort. A similar example is calcium in biology (Q60097). Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

API / Pyton / SPARQL access questions

Hi everyone,

please see Wikidata:Project chat#Conventions for Knowledge Graph aligning for context.


TL;DR, we're looking to check if a wikidata instance exists for ~500 entries we have in our database. We also don't want to overburden the Wikidata API, hence:

What can we do to most efficiently query the wikidata database?


What currently do is: 

query = f"""
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel (GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT ?altLabel; separator = ", ") AS ?altLabels) 
(SAMPLE(?description) AS ?description) WHERE {{
{selection[select]}
OPTIONAL {{?item skos:altLabel ?altLabel FILTER(LANG(?altLabel) = "en")}}
OPTIONAL {{?item schema:description ?description FILTER(LANG(?description) = "en")}}
SERVICE wikibase:label {{bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en".}}
}}
GROUP BY ?item ?itemLabel
LIMIT {limit}
"""

, wherin we limit the results to 20 at most, and select based on: 

selection = {
    'label' : f'?item rdfs:label "{label}"@en.',
    'altLabel' : f'?item skos:altLabel "{label}"@en.'
}

Then, per label, we check if:

  1. entries with that label are available (e.g. "STEP file" to Q3509055
  2. if these entries do not sum up to our limit (20), then we also check if entries with that label as altLabel exist (e.g. ".stp" to Q3509055),
  3. if these entries do not sum up to our limit (20) then we try 1. and 2. again with (if != label):
    1. label.lower(), so "STEP" -> "step",
    2. label.capitalize(), so "STEP" -> "Step",
    3. label.upper(), so "STEP" -> "STEP" -> not done, since == label


Then we store all queries and results so we run no query twice, and can just check our local "copy" for the result.


Given all this, our Question:

  1. Is there a better way?

Better as in "easier on wikidata / time" as well as "better results", since currently we have about 40% match rate. Likely, many ouf our instances do, in fact, have no match, but others (like Q2117885 "Systems Modeling Language" or "SysML") are currently just not catched. We have seen advise to run some preprocessing on the labels, to lower all wikidata labels in a filter, but that seemed unfathomably taxing on all parties involved.

There is also the general advice to use a data dump. We have checked Wikidata:Database download and https://dumps.wikimedia.org/wikidatawiki/entities/, and not found a dump that contains all labels AND is relatively small. The lexemes do not seem to contain all labels, presumably only Q111352 instances. All the aformentioned entries, e.g. .p21 and .stp, are not mentioned therein.


I really appreciate your help, and am open to suggestions, improvements, hints or anything, really :)


Best, TimBorgNetzWerk (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered using a tool like OpenRefine to help reconcile your data with Wikidata's? M2Ys4U (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Haven't heard about it yet (I think), will be looking into it, thanks! TimBorgNetzWerk (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
OpenRefine is nice if you intend to import data into Wikidata. Last time I checked the reconciliation it uses yielded less than ideal results. Is this a publicly available graph? If your graph had it's own identifier registered on Wikidata you could use Mix'n'match to do a preliminary matching of the dataset and then let you verify each match manually. Asking for a new identifier can be done at WD:PP.
In any case freetext search may be what WDQS is worst at. Unsurprisingly the built-in search does a much better job, see [1] for Wikidata specific functionality. You won't tax the API as long as you make calls sequentially and support maxlag. There are libraries available that makes this easier. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"agency" property?

I'm getting "{{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)" from:

  • CNN Newsource (24 February 2021). "Urban League of Greater Kansas City unveils social justice bus". KMIZ. Wikidata Q126365824.View profile on Scholia

in Wikipedia:Gwendolyn Grant (activist)#References.

In a section on "work with template:Cite Q?" on the talk page associated with Wikipedia:Template:Sfn, Wikipedia:User:ActivelyDisinterested said, "CNN News Source is not a valid author name ... . The correct field in this case would be |agency= but [that is not] supported by Wikidata / Cite Q." I've experimented with assigning "CNN Newsource" to different properties, so far without finding one that makes this complaint disappear.

Can someone help me find a property to which to assign "CNN Newsource" (Q5013147) so this complaint in Wikipedia disappears? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864)

Why If I add subclass of (P279) with for example history of Berlin (Q679741) then value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864) pop up? For example, it pop up at history of trams in Berlin (Q1514212) while it not pop up in history of trams in Barcelona (Q11925955). Eurohunter (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eurohunter You have to make sure there is a complete hierarchy of classes. In the example you have given, Q1514212 has class Q679741, but Q679741 needs to have some class too... I suggest Q122131 be added there as P279. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

We need to put an end to this

For months, items like

and likely more others have been target of constant edit warring, having English and Russian description changed back and forth by various IP addresses and few-edits-accounts. Could anyone have a look, say what is going on and suggest how administrators should deal with it? --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Chechen-Ingush wars. All items should be protected at a random version. May be we should block the warriors as well. Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Though may be things like this would help before protection, but then I need to go manually through the list. I can do it, but very slowly. Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I see no good reason to protect them to be only edited by admins. Semiprotections should be good enough. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

set confirm user

i contribute in wp/fa with 1300 edits. in wiki data i cant change semi protected pages, so im gonna ask you for give me this level. thank you میسانو (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Infrastruktur (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
no problem. first i didn't know where i can issue that میسانو (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

constraint on instance or subclass of

ISFDB award ID (P11395) has constraint 

subject type constraint:
class - type of award 
relation - instance or subclass of

So why is Ditmar Award (Q906455) which is a subclass of (P279) of science fiction award (Q107581015), an instance of (P31) of type of award (Q107467117) OK

While William Atheling Jr. Award (Q8004646) which is an instance of (P31) of literary award (Q378427), an instance of (P31) of type of award (Q107467117) reports a violation? Vicarage (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Because William Atheling Jr. Award (Q8004646) is currently neither an instance nor a subclass of type of award (Q107467117) (instance of (P31) is not transitive and neither literary award (Q378427) nor Ditmar Award (Q906455) are subclasses of type of award (Q107467117)) while Ditmar Award (Q906455) is a direct instance of type of award (Q107467117). It seems to me that the subject type of ISFDB award ID (P11395) should be instance or subclass of science fiction award (Q107581015), not type of award (Q107467117). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I was expecting instance of (P31) to be transitive in this check. Changing ISFDB award ID (P11395) as you suggest solves my problem. Thanks. Vicarage (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced religions and ethnicities

@Nikkimaria: Was a decision made to remove all unreferenced religions and ethnicities at some point? If so I missed that discussion. If the decision was made they should be deleted by a bot, not one-by-one by any individual. Doing it that way will lead to selection bias. I noticed some disappearing and traced the deletions to Special:Contributions/Nikkimaria RAN (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

These are mostly reverts of a particular problematic IP editor who pops up periodically in Special:AbuseFilter/95. If there is a preference to revert such edits by bot I have no objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
For ethinicities, removal was approved for unreferenced statements and deprecation for Wikipedia-referenced statements, see Wikidata:Bot_requests/Archive/2021/10#request_to_depreciated_ethnic_group_only_sourced_with_P143_(2021-10-23). At the time I think it was also notified or discussed on Project chat. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is ending soon

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there something like a Wikidata WP:DOB?

Specifically Q5364577, which seems to be ultimately sourced to imdb. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes - see Wikidata:BLP. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thankfully, Wikidata can structure these claims better than a textually-based Wikipedia project can.
For example, references can be attached directly to the DOB claim; these will unambiguously support that particular claim, and no others.
Also, multiple claims can be attached to one person's bio. Therefore if there is dispute, ambiguity, or competing claims for a DOB, all can be included!
Deprecation and preference values can be assigned. Therefore, if a DOB claim is found to be incorrect or invalid, it can be deprecated, colored red, and notations can be made about those reasons. Likewise, if a DOB is found to be valid above the others, it can be marked "preferred".
In this way we can better document any controversy, weak/strong sourcing issues, or disputes, not only about a date of birth but about any germane fact for a Wikidata item. It's a shame that enwiki still doesn't want to play nice and draw from Wikidata's growing pool of structured data such as this, because it's way easier to document and track such disputes here in one centralised location, than in parallel, on dozens or hundreds of language-specific wikis, with mazes of twisty little policies and guidelines, all different. Elizium23 (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #635

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-07-08. Please help Translate.

Events

  • Upcoming:
    • The next Wikidata+Wikibase office hours will take place on Wednesday, 16:00 UTC on Wednesday, 10th July 2024 (18:00 Berlin time) in the Wikidata Telegram group. The Wikidata and Wikibase office hours are online events where the development team presents what they have been working on over the past quarter, and the community is welcome to ask questions and discuss important issues related to the development of Wikidata and Wikibase.
    • Registration for Wikimania 2024 is open! In-person participants: please register until 26 July, 11:59 p.m., UTC. Virtual participants can register anytime. If you received a scholarship from the Wikimedia Foundation, you will receive an email with a registration code and instructions.

Tool of the week

  • User:Teester/EntityShape.js - a userscript that adds an input box to a Wikidata page wherein you can enter an EntitySchema (such as E10). When you click "Check", checks whether each statement and property conforms to the schema. It then displays a summary at the top of the Item for each property indicating whether they conform or not. It also adds a badge to each statement and each property on the page indicating whether they conform or not.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • EntitySchemas: The new datatype to link to EntitySchemas in statements has been released.
  • mul language code: We are preparing the release.

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

Showcase items discussion

Editors are invited to join the discussion at Wikidata talk:Showcase items § Formalizing the process. Sdkb talk 19:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ingest of SEC EDGAR data into Wikidata?

I have recently noticed that many company infoboxes on Wikipedia are frequently out of date, even though they draw from Wikidata for many values like yearly results. All of this data is available online through the SEC's EDGAR system, at least for publicly traded companies in the US, so I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to write a bot that would read SEC data and update Wikidata with it?

Botlord (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@BotlordYes, that would be nice and useful for a lot of infoboxes on various wikis. I think it would definitely be possible to do the mapping using XBRL. Feel free to discuss any kind of details at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Companies. Jklamo (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Conventions for Knowledge Graph aligning

Dear Wikidata Community,

We're looking to build a Aerospace Engineering Knowledge Graph, and linking (all) entries to wikidata. For some, like Q3319996, that's easy, for others like conceptual modelling not so much. Others, like CPACS, are not even in Wikidata yet, or Wikipedia for that matter. Given that context, I have the following cases and questions:

  1. If a perfect match exists, no questions.
  2. If a match exists that does look correct, but seems to be lacking relations, should we populate this entry as we see fit? (assumed answer: yes, see en:WP:BOLD)
  3. If a match exists that does look somewhat corect, but does not have the right type, should we split it into two different entities?
    1. e.g. Q377960 not being a Q3249551, but an Q166142 - should we create a new process instance with the same label?
    2. what about instances such as Q2623243, which specifically lists conceptual model (an object) and conceptual modelling (a process)? Does the existence of this entry mean differentiation is not desired?
  4. If no match exists, I assume we should create one. I've taken a look at Wikidata:Notability:
    1. "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references."
      1. All instances would fall under this category, since all are derived from a systematic literature review and we can link to the respective papers where they are discussed.
    2. All our instances would be instances of Q10843872, Q7397, Q235557 or similar. Examples: https://github.com/DLR-SC/tixi, https://dlr-sl.github.io/cpacs-website/

Furthermore, I have some SPARQL / Database questions, which I'll add to a separate topic to not overflow this one.

Thanks, TimBorgNetzWerk (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

2. --> yes, be warry of the distinction between instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279). Make sure that the relations you add respect the transitivity rule.
3. Probably hard to give a general answer, it's likely a case-by-case basis. For the examples you gave
- product data management (Q377960) is a bit of a weird case because after a quick skim it appears that the linked wikipedia pages themselves don't have the same type: the English seems to talk about a process (Q3249551) while the French one seems to be talking about software? If you decide to split the two, perhaps the wiki pages should be re-linked as well.
- On conceptual model (Q2623243) I don't know the original author's intent here, but will point out that the corresponding edit seems to have been partially automated, so there is a chance that mistakes slipped through. The same author added "Conceptual models" as an alias, which is spurious on the sole basis that it shouldn't be capitalized. In any case, I think it makes sense to create an entry for "conceptual modeling", with appropriate cross-links such as facet of (P1269).
Overall, it's possible that there were no curators with a deep expertise and a good overall view of this part of the graph, hence possible inconsistencies. Improvements welcome!
4. I would say yes, especially if you link the references.
Lastly I am not sure if your Aerospace Engineering Knowledge Graph will be publicly available, but if it is perhaps you could create an identifiers to link to it? Although I must say I'm not sure what is the process to create a new identifier, nor what the criterion are to propose a new one. Alcinos (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist is reopening July 15, 2024

Here’s what to expect, and how to prepare.

Hello everyone, the new Community Wishlist (formerly Community Wishlist Survey) opens on 15 July for piloting. I will jump straight into an FAQ to help with some questions you may have:

Q: How long do I have to submit wishes?

A: As part of the changes, Wishlist will remain open. There is no deadline for wish submission.

Q: What is this ‘Focus Area’ thing?

A: The Foundation will identify patterns with wishes that share a collective problem and group them into areas known as ‘Focus Areas’. The grouping of wishes will begin in August 2024.

Q: At what point do we vote? Are we even still voting?

A: Contributors are encouraged to discuss and vote on Focus Areas to highlight the areas.

Q: How will this new system move wishes forward for addressing?

A: The Foundation, affiliates, and volunteer developers can adopt Focus Areas. The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to integrating Focus Areas into our Annual Planning for 2025-26.

Focus Areas align to hypotheses (specific projects, typically taking up to one quarter) and/or Key Results (broader projects taking up to one year).

Q: How do I submit a wish? Has anything changed about submissions?

A: Yes there are some changes. Please have a look at the guide.

I hope the FAQ helped. You can read more about the launch.

You are encouraged to start drafting your wishes at your pace. Please consult the guide as you do so. Also if you have an earlier unfulfilled wish that you want to re-submit, we are happy to assist you draft.

You can start your draft (see an example) and don't hesitate to ask for support when drafting, please notify me via the Drafts List.

–– STei (WMF) (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

U4C Special Election - Call for Candidates

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Railway junctions: Q24045957 vs Q336764

I'd be grateful if anyone could help me distinguish railway node (Q24045957) and railway junction (Q336764) -- both used specifically for railway junctions, and distinct from railroad switch (Q82818) and the more general junction (Q1777515).

There seem to be two different concepts here, at least in German, but I'm not entirely seeing how they should be named in English to express the difference, or whether articles in the various different language wikis are all connected to the correct item.

Which would be most appropriate for a location where one linear ELR railway line section (Q113990375) of track (perhaps 50 km long, double-track) meets another such section? Jheald (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Multichill (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) -revi (talk • contribs • logs)-- 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC) (was Hym411) User:JarrahTree (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC) A.Bernhard (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Steenth (talk) YLSS (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Konggaru (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Elmarbu (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Nitrolinken (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC) George23820 Talk‎ 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Daniele.Brundu (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Dannebrog Spy (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Knoxhale 18:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC) happy5214 22:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits DarTar (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Sascha GPD (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC) A1AA1A (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Sam Wilson 10:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Danielt998 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Maxim75 (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Fabio Bettani (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Geogast (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC) OktaRama2010 (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC) PhiH (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Jcornelius (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Michgrig (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Trockennasenaffe (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Secretlondon (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC) GALAXYライナー (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Yirba (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Zwantzig (talk) 09:08, 07 September 2023 (UTC) S4b1nuz ᴇ.656(SMS) 16:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Prefuture (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Cmelak770 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) DaxServer (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Uniwah (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Railways. (I did ask on the talk page there a couple of years ago, but it didn't get any responses.) Jheald (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I can explain these from the Czech point of view, but the explanation is similar for all countries in the central Europe (Poland, Germany, Slovakia etc.). At thirst railway node (Q24045957) is very big (hundreds of switches) and railway junction (Q336764) is very small (sometimes only one switch, but usually not more than four switches). railway node (Q24045957) express connection of lot of railway lines usually in one town/city. E.g. železniční uzel Praha (Prague junction) consists of all railway station in Prague (Q1085), in which all railway lines leading to this big city are connected. railway junction (Q336764) is usually a place where one railway line splits into two railway lines and it is not railway station (Q55488), so if the railway lines are with one track, then one switch can be enough. In Czechia and Poland it is also a place on the double track line between two stations, where are 4 switches to go from the left to the right track and vice versa (the same place is Slovakia (till 2000 also in Czechia) is classified as passing loop (Q784159)). But I have no idea how to name these different places in English. When I translate it, I usually use "junction" for both, although they have completely different meanings. --Cmelak770 (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
In Germany we strongly distinguish between free track (Q1302250) which roughly means track which is not part of a railway station (Q55488) and tracks that are part of a railway station (Q55488). railway junction (Q336764) is a junction, that is not part of a railway station (Q55488). As far as I know, (most?) english speaking countries don't have this concept free track (Q1302250), so this may not be easy to translate. --Trockennasenaffe (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Asked at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways whether anyone there can suggest better English-language labels / descriptions Jheald (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Cmelak770, Trockennasenaffe: After some input from en-wiki and ChatGPT, I have updated the label/description for Q24045957 to "railway node" = "significant location in the railway network which may encompass multiple connected lines, stations, and facilities, often a major transit hub".
I also considered "rail hub" or "railway hub", which I think better captures the sense of the articles for Q24045957 in cs-wiki and ru-wiki, and of items like Prague rail hub (Q12046953) and Brno railway hub (Q20860267); however the concept described in the de-wiki, nl-wiki, and it-wiki articles seems not necessarily to be on such a large scale.
railway junction (Q336764) would then be for specific locations of track divergence, usually not in stations.
This could probably still be improved or refined, but it may be a start at least. Jheald (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the English description is quite correct now. Cmelak770 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

HDS ID (P902) having value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864) with GND ID (P227)

I'm new to Wikidata specific practices, sorry if I screw anything up or asked in the wrong place. I don't think HDS should require a GND ID, considering there are many topics with an HDS article that do not have a GND ID. For example, Journal du Jura (Q633032). Unless I am horrifically misunderstanding something. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I have removed; too many topics don't have GND ID (P227), so having this constraint isn't worthwhile. Epìdosis 08:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Epìdosis Thank you very much :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling convention for labels and descriptions in English: Request for comment

Hello everyone, just a heads up that a new Request for comment has been created to discuss a standard approach for labelling in Wikidata. If you're interested, please take a look and share your thoughts. Carbonaro. (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Very widely used property no longer works

See Property talk:P5380#No longer works BhamBoi (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is National Academy of Sciences member ID (P5380). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikidata property to identify online accounts

i did already create this before posting (whoops) because i am still kind of new (i can't figure out how/if i could delete it,double whoops, sorry!) basically i've noted several authors who have "official" archive of our own (AO3) accounts and I feel we should be able to note this, so now archive of our own username exists, and i would like to actively use it. Honeybeeandtea (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

by "official" i mean linked to on their official websites, but aren't offical in the sense that their publishers are involved Honeybeeandtea (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You have rather jumped the gun. You should use Archive of Our Own tag (P8419) with qualifiers, and ask for your item Q127358232 to be deleted. Vicarage (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
i don't disagree with you on the fact that i jumped the gun, but in the case of AO3, tags have a specific purpose that is separate from that of a username. using the the "ao3 tag" and then amending it to "but actually i mean the username" feels like an ineloquent and roundabout way to express a relationship as linear as "this is that person's username" Honeybeeandtea (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
There's currently no dedicated property for AO3 accounts. You can use website account on (P553) instead (see the property examples on that page for how to use it). Additionally, you could propose a new property specifically for AO3 accounts (see Wikidata:Property proposal) - but those are usually only succesfull if there's a significant number of potential items for persons with such accounts. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:D5AC:53B7:B54E:983E 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I tend to use described by source (P1343) with URL and other qualifiers for non-property relations to external sites. Vicarage (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd say described by source (P1343) is more for webpages that are about the thing/concept (and preferably actually contain some in-depth information). While accounts/user profiles are IMO better suited for website account on (P553), since that's the whole purpose of the property. Using more specific properties makes it much easier to evaluate the exact nature and potential use of the linked pages. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:9156:3944:B752:5BF9 12:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Good point, but I'm surprised how unused it is, only 25 records for British authors, and 2500 for all humans. Vicarage (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
maybe it's a sign we have good coverage over must sites people have accounts on BrokenSegue (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Q3281534 ("modern history") has a misleading name

I tried to find instructions on how to request renaming of an item but couldn't find anything, so I'm posting here.

The object in question is incorrectly named. As a historical period, the term is "modern period" or "modern era". Calling it "modern history" would be like naming Q12554 "medieval history" or Q9903 "Ming history".

The term "modern period" or "modern era" are the standard terms among English-language academic sources. Peter Isotalo (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but please don't leave the en-gb label with the old name, just delete it Vicarage (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I thought it strange when I tried to add "Modern History" as an academic major (P812) to an item earlier today and it wasn't appearing in the search. I've re-added "modern history" as an alias as this item is used for the academic discipline (Q11862829) and is the widely used term: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/subjects/history/modern-history-ma/ https://www.lincoln.ac.uk/course/modhstub/ https://courses.aber.ac.uk/postgraduate/modern-history-masters/ See also for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_History and https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history Piecesofuk (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Vicarage, I'm not really that handy with Wikidata. To change the name of something, do I just edit the label?
@Piecesofuk, I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Is a historical period the same as the discipline studying that historical period? Isn't that like saying that "gender studies" has to be an alias of "gender"?
Note that the English Wikipedia article has never been located at "modern history". It's just a redirect. Peter Isotalo (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it probably should be split into two. But at the moment there are hundreds of items that link to modern period (Q3281534) assuming it's an academic discipline (Q11862829). English Wikipedia is using "modern history" as an alias, for example see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee and the link in the sentence "In 1901, Attlee went up to University College, Oxford, reading modern history." Unless someone creates a new item for the academic discipline and moves all the linking items then I think the "modern history" alias should remain. Piecesofuk (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, just edit the label section and make the en-gb line blank. I think it needs to be split, like early modern history is.
SELECT DISTINCT ?item WHERE {?item wdt:P69 ?place;p:P69 [ pq:P812 wd:Q3281534].}
Try it!
Shows 44 the people for which is was an academic major. Vicarage (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarifications. I see the logic in keeping the alias. I'm trying to work to improve the coverage of this and adjacent topics over at English Wikipedia. I think that needs to be dealt with before sorting things out here.
But very good pointers for the future. Thanks! Peter Isotalo (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
One thing, you made the change before allowing people to comment here. Its always tempting to leap ahead, but you need to allow people to comment on a proposed change, rather than persuade you to revert it. Vicarage (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata qualifier (Q15720608)

By the time of now, this label is `Mahfuja`, but the evidences are this was `Wikidata qualifier`, that you and I knew well. Is this a joke or something? JuguangXiao (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The item had been vandalised. Peter James (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Yet another valuable IP contribution. Darwin Ahoy! 14:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Identical website address

ClientEarth (Q5132479) have two identical address for official website (P856). Can someone delete one of them? 151.95.91.76 13:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. RVA2869 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good practice on labels

(pinging @Tm. continuing discussion from User talk:Tm#Edits on stores for Lojas com História. no harm to them.)

to the Wikidata community, I want to ask about Help:Label and what is the good practice in this situation. some Wikidata items, in this case buildings, are labeled simply as their street address with a prefix. take for example, Prédio na Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar, 45 (Q98962545) (literally, "building on Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar, 45") or Q90315021 (literally, "Loja Confeitaria Nacional, ground floor, including integrated movable heritage"). this is taken straight from the sourced external databases.

according to Help:Label: Labels begin with a lowercase letter except for when uppercase is normally required or expected [...] proper nouns such as the names of specific people, specific places, specific buildings, specific books, etc., should be capitalized. my question is, would this be counted as a proper name? the building itself has no name and these are simply descriptions of the given place. so then how would it be labeled? JnpoJuwan (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

These are proper names, as i said to you. They have their proper name by the portuguese cultural heritage, the former DGPC. If you had taken a few minutes you would see that, no ad hoc translation made with any sourced translated name is made, these are proper names named so in legislation and\or portuguese cultural heritage databases kept by the portugues estate organizations that have in their remit said cultural heritage. You said that
Prédio na Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar, 45 that "the building itself has no name and these are simply descriptions of the given place" yet you have the main DGPC database, other database of DGPC with the same name.
And Loja Confeitaria Nacional, piso térreo, incluindo o património móvel integrado] is the listed part of the shop Confeitaria Nacional, as the shop is not all listed cultural heritage in its totality. Again the name is the proper name, as stated in main DGPC database and legislation listing it, from Anúncio n.º 174/2017, going with Anúncio n.º 38/2020 and ending in Portaria n.º 613/2020. Tm (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
And these names are completly used in Wikidata, just as an example Iron Foundry (building Number 1/140) Iron Foundry (building Number 1/140) Including Railings And Bollards or Vulcan Block (Building Number 21) And Attached Bollards or Number 15 And Attached Agricultural Building or Factory Building Outbuilding Attached To Number 55 or Castle Farm Cottages Number 5 And Farm Building Attached, british listed cultural heritage monuments, among of hundreds silimars. Tm (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I am also asking to a wider community to determine whether it is a good thing to continue doing as such. JnpoJuwan (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Any search for listed buildings will show you that this is a common and long established pratice. Tm (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Like, as an example of an US building New York Herald Building or the listed building in U.S. National Register of Historic Places Building at 73 Mansion Street and this last building uses same the name in its articles in english Wikipedia and german Wikipedia Tm (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The labels for British buildings comes from their source as being imported from a heritage register. We ensure that the listing property has subject named as (P1810) to preserve this, but I fully expect that we might change the name to a more colloquial form on WD, as we should not be bound by a listing officer's conventions on defining a site's scope, and it makes little sense to create 2 items merely to have them with and without their bollards. There are many examples of things where their official name is different from the common name. We should record both in the body of the entry, but the label, for use by humans scanning the site and report summaries, should be the colloquial version. I'd also expect foreign language labels to adjust for their own formatting conventions (moving the street number to the start in English for example), but without actually translating names literally.
"The Vulcan Building" is a good example, and I'd expect other Portsmouth historic buildings to be changed too in time Vicarage (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I have seen the descriptions given in these items, that I do not doubt. what I ask is: what is considered a proper name here, as the same databases list many other designations for the same item besides that, or for SIPA, do not list the original.
even if these are the legally recognised names, is it useful to list these names first as opposed to descriptive and importantly translatable names? JnpoJuwan (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This are monuments are named so in legislation and the databases of the portuguese Património Cultural, IP (former DGPC), so these are proper names. The pratice in Wikidata is not not make ad hoc translation without proper sources that state that there is a commons translated name and you have the example of the british listed cultural heritage monuments to see what these are proper names and they are capitalized in Wikidata.
These are designations are other proper names to the same items, from the databases of portuguese Património Cultural, IP (former DGPC) from the main DGPC database (and legislation) for cultural heritage monuments. For complement, there are other databases from Património Cultural, IP (former DGPC) like the SIPA database and, for specific cases, other databases of works of specific routes or arquitects like the as the one linked as "other database of DGPC" and or archeological sites database. Tm (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think a good rule of thumb here is "how would this label work in the middle of a sentence?" Would one write "This is a photo of Prédio na Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar, 45" or "This is a photo of prédio na Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar, 45"? Maybe in English the answer would be one way and in another language it would be different; I know for example in French lower-case is very common for what in English would be upper-cased. In any case I think this general rule should work across most languages. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
for this case, it is would certainly be lowercased as "prédio" is not a proper noun, it is just the word for building and describing the given address, for that reason I suggest using an informal approach for these items. JnpoJuwan (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
In this case this is certainly uppercase as this is a proper name of this building, as stated in two different sources databases of portuguese Património Cultural, IP (former DGPC) , that talk and describe specifically this building. in one source is clearly stated "Designação:Prédio na Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar, 45" or "Name\designation:Prédio na Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar, the same as other source. These is a name with not one but two sources. Tm (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Also im portuguese one capitalizes the proper names of buildings as stated in Ciberdúvidas da Língua Portuguesa "A maiúscula é obrigatória apenas para os nomes próprios (dos edifícios, das vias, dos bairros, das localidades...)." or in english "Capital letters are mandatory only for proper nouns (of buildings, roads, neighborhoods, towns...)". Tm (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Another page on Ciberdúvidas da Língua Portuguesa states that "Como geralmente é expressão referente a um edifício histórico importante, escreve-se com maiúsculas iniciais" or in english "As it is generally an expression referring to an important historical building, it is written with initial capital letters". This also applies to this building as is also an important historical building, as is described, with this same capitalized name, in three different databases of the Património Cultural, IP (former DGPC), the department of the portuguese Ministry of Culture responsible for the listing of the portuguese immovable cultural heritage, besides another database of the portuguese Ministry of Culture, so showing that this is a clear important historical building. Tm (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
And, if any there is any doubt the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990 as "SÍNTESE DO USO DA MAIÚSCULA INICIAL E DA MINÚSCULA INICIAL [I A letra inicial maiúscula é utilizada: (...) 11.º Na letra inicial de palavras usadas em categorizações de logradouros públicos, de templos e de edifícios: Bairro de Alvalade; Rossio; a Alta de Lisboa; (...) Rua Augusta; Rua da Palma; Pátio do Tijolo; Basílica da Estrela; Capelas Imperfeitas; Convento dos Capuchos; Igreja de Santa Maria Maior; Igreja do Bonfim; Templo do Apostolado Positivista; Mosteiro de Santa Maria(...); Edifício Azevedo Cunha. or in english ""SUMMARY OF THE USE OF INITIAL CAPITAL AND INITIAL LOWERCASE The initial capital letter is used: (...) 11th In the initial letter of words used in categorizations of public places, temples and buildings" Tm (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
all in all, I will respect Tm's decision and keep the labels as is, as they have made good arguments in regards to this. I am so sorry if this was a headache for you. --JnpoJuwan (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a complex question and it partially depends on the language. I'm not sure for Portuguese but in French, proper names often start with a lowercase. For English, I would like a confirmation (ping ArthurPSmith) but cases like building at 73 Mansion Street (Q1003019) should probably be begin with a lowercase too (like in the Wikipedia article). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, given that the associated enwiki article starts "The building at 73 Mansion Street [...]" the wikidata entry should be labeled "building at 73 Mansion Street" in English. I've fixed it. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
pinging Portuguese users @DiogoBaptista, @GoEThe to see this. JnpoJuwan (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I am Portuguese, and quite familiar with that documentation, constantly working with it for almost 20 years. Thinks like "building in street x" are mere descriptions for effects of listing of the heritage, and not official names of anything. They are just a way that allows some identification (often not even that precise) of the listing. They are not intended to be used as official names, nor should be used as such. As for the SIPA database, it's a expert sourced mixed with crowdsourced repository with many mistakes, some of them egregious. Can be used with care, but definitely is not a source of official names, being even worst on that subject than the documentation itself. In any case, those are mere descriptions, and they are not necessarily, by any stretch of imagination, intended as official names. Darwin Ahoy! 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Como referiste e bem há erros graves de nomes na SIPA e até na DGPM, pelo que não são fontes totalmente confiáveis especialmente em matéria de nomes, caso que me parece grave e que está a gerar conflito é o do Bairro das Estacas ou Bairro de habitações económicas de São João de Deus e não de São José https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25418835 situação que eu corrigi e que foi revertida sem qualquer justificação pelo utilizador @Tm. Fontes que suportam essa denominação. https://dre.tretas.org/dre/4454194/anuncio-51-2021-de-17-de-marco https://amensagem.pt/2021/07/12/a-vida-entre-estacas-alvalade/ https://www.publico.pt/2021/03/17/local/noticia/bairro-estacas-alvalade-vias-classificacao-1954810 DiogoBaptista (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Translation of Diogo Baptista

As you rightly pointed out, there are serious naming errors in SIPA and even in the DGPM, so they are not totally reliable sources, especially in terms of names. A case that seems serious to me and that is generating conflict is the Bairro das Estacas or Bairro de habitações económicas de São João de Deus and not São José https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25418835 this is something that I corrected and that was reverted without any justification by the user Tm. Sources that support this denomination. https://dre.tretas.org/dre/4454194/anuncio-51-2021-de-17-de-marco https://amensagem.pt/2021/07/12/a-vida-entre-estacas-alvalade/ https://www.publico.pt/2021/03/17/local/noticia/bairro-estacas-alvalade-vias-classificacao-1954810

JnpoJuwan (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Ping @GualdimG Darwin Ahoy! 15:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Não sei quem anda a copiar os nomes todos da antiga DGPC inclusive fazendo-o ignorando paginas e categorias wikidata e wikicommons que ja existiam duplicando assim paginas sobre o mesmo assunto.
É um absurdo o nome da Confeiteria Nacional ser “Loja Confeitaria Nacional, piso térreo e primeiro andar, incluindo o património móvel integrado” ou o Banco de Angola e Metrópole ser "Edifício do Banco de Fomento Nacional na Rua da Conceição, n.º 134-136" este ultimo caso duplicou paginas ignorando a já existente. Ainda um pior, o edificio Almirante Reis, 2 a 2-K foi denominado de "Prédio situado no gaveto formado pela Avenida do Almirante Reis, 2 a 2-K, e Largo do Intendente Pina Manique, 1 a 6"
A DGPC não tem qualquer poder em alterar os nomes comuns ou oficiais dos lugares, esses nomes são técnicos e meramente da DGPC para fins de classificação patrimonial e não tem qualquer correspondência com a realidade ou com o nome oficial de certo lugar. Em certos casos esse nome da DGPC agrupa vários objectos num só não sendo possível assim a distinção de cada um de forma individual. Aliás, penso até que o nome das paginas da wikidepia deve prevalecer a denominação mais comum e popular havendo espaço reservado para outros nomes (wikidata por exemplo) ou redirecionamentos. DiogoBaptista (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Translation of Diogo Baptista

I don't know who went about copying all the names from the old DGPC including doing so ignoring existing pages and categories on Wikidata and Commons and so duplicating pages for the same thing

It is absurd for the name of Confeitaria Nacional to be "Loja Confeitaria Nacional, piso térreo e primeiro andar, incluindo o património móvel integrado" or the Banco de Angola e Metrópole to be "Edifício do Banco de Fomento Nacional na Rua da Conceição, n.º 134-136". This last one duplicated oages ignoring the existing ones. An even worse one is the Almirante Reus building, 2 to 2-K, was named "Prédio situado no gaveto formado pela Avenida do Almirante Reis, 2 a 2-K, e Largo do Intendente Pina Manique, 1 a 6"

DGPC holds no any power to change common or official place names, these names are technical and merely used by the DGPC for heritage classification purposes and lack any connection with reality or with the official name of a certain place. In certain cases, this name by the DGPC groups several objects into one without it being possible to distinguish each one separately. Furthermore, I think that even in the page titles for Wikipedia, the common and popular name should take precedence, with reserved space for other names (Wikidata for example) or redirects

JnpoJuwan (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Do buildings (properties, in general) have a "proper name" (official designation) in Portugal? Yes, they do. This first name is what is registered at the Land Registry Office (Conservatória do Registo Predial) to which corresponds a Land Registry (Caderneta Predial) (like people, who are registered in the Identification File (Arquivo de Identificação) and who have a Citizen Card). The buildings are also registered with "Finance" (Taxes Department), where they have a matrix registration number (people also have a tax identification number). Then, the buildings have other designations, some official, others more common. In Portugal, there are buildings (castles, palaces, manor houses, churches, chapels, etc.) that are subject to cultural heritage classification and by that obtain another official designation by law (laws, decrees, ordinances, etc.). This official designation is reflected in two state databases (which overlap) which we can call one DGPC and the other SIPA (there are other unofficial databases such as /patrimonio/ e-cultura, for example). The DGPC database uses the official designation of the classification process more specifically, while SIPA is not as strict regarding the use of the legal designation. It is interesting to note that, for the example already given of Confeitaria Nacional in Lisbon, the DGPC indicates "Loja Confeitaria Nacional, piso térreo e primeiro andar, incluindo o património móvel integrado" while SIPA indicates "Edifício na Praça da Figueira, n.º 18/ Edifício da Confeitaria Nacional". It should be noted that the object of classification was only the ground floor and the first floor, which is expressed in the DGPC db, while in the SIPA db both designations point to the entire building, being certain that the ground floor and the 1st floor are obviously part of the set.

Then the problem arises of distinguishing the property itself from the use/user given to it. In this case they still coincide, and Confeitaria Nacional can indicate both the property and the use given to it. Since in Wikidata there are two elements (and well), one for the property (Q90315021), and another for the user (Q2992412), although in this case it is wrong to say that the user is "part of" a property, when the correct thing would be that has "headquarters" in that property. But, for me, the Wikidata element referring to the property (Q90315021) could just have the designation "Confeitaria Nacional", for the sake of simplicity (and without risk of confusion), as long as it should had a correct "Description", which could be "building in Lisbon where Confeitaria Nacional is located, ground floor and first floor, including the integrated movable assets".

In summary. The rule that has been followed should continue to be applied, that the designation Wikidata/Commons is the legal designation whenever it exists, that is, the designation of the legal instrument that classifies the property (or the classification process that has not been completed), and should be simplified whenever possible and without the possibility of error, as in the case mentioned, in which the Wikidata elements Q90315021 and Q2992412 could both have the same first name, "Confeitaria Nacional", the first for the building and the second for the user (confectionery).GualdimG (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

what is your opinion on labeling other items such as Trees of Public Interest? these all are named like Q98444561, which is less than useful. in the history, you can see how I did it.
  • label: <tree species> in <place>
  • description: Tree of Public Interest in <place>, <city>
none of these are really proper names but one is more descriptive. JnpoJuwan (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
another option is adding info from their sources, such as numbers. this states that the tree above is "Árvore Classificada de Interesse Público D.R. 2.ªsérie – N. º169 de 03/09/2018". the label could perhaps include that for distinction and descriptiveness. JnpoJuwan (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #536

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-07-15. Please help Translate.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot: SpinachBot - Task/s: AI agent-enabled question answering through the creation and execution of complex SPARQL queries on Wikidata. Users tag the bog with wikidata-related questions, and it tries to come up with an answer by iteratively creating SPARQL queries.

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Relationships between two Wikidata items a new tool hosted on Observable which looks at all statements involving a pair of Wikidata items.
  • User:Magnus Manske/ac2wd.js - This script adds an "AC2WD" link in the tools sidebar. When you click on it, it uses the AC2WD tool to check the item for certain Authority Control IDs (eg VIAF). It then checks these AC datasets for statements (and more AC IDs). It will then add any new information it found as new statements, or add more references to existing statements where possible. A green checkmark will be appended to the link if data was added (reload the page to see), otherwise a "—" if no new data was available.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

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

A 94.176.18.80 02:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Location of Trump rally

Greetings editors, I just want to raise this issue in a centralized location for your attention. It would seem that the most controversial element of last weekend's Trump rally is its location. Reliable sources and editors are bitterly divided on this issue. Therefore I've put in some research, and proposed some compromises and a path forward.

Please keep the peace! Contribute any opinions or suggestions at Talk:Q127421251#Location suggestions. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

not sure what transcluded means in new property proposal

I have tried to propose a new property Wikidata:Property proposal/africanmusiclibrary.org artist id but somehow messed it up. it says "You have not transcluded your proposal on Wikidata:Property proposal/Person yet. Please do it." but I'm not sure what this means, and it's not obvious what to do when clicking the "Please do it" link Please could someone help me Thanks. QWER9875 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This was the desired action. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
thank you! QWER9875 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on The New Zealand Annual Review of Education (Q96737379) and would link to add links to the three kinds of RSS feed provided and the OAI-PMH feed. How do I do this? I can see the RSS (Q45432) Atom (Q267956) and Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (Q2430433) but not associated properties. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is web feed URL (P1019), which I believe is what you want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Koavf, that was the answer I was looking for. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Genuinely amazing when I get something correct. Glad I could help, Stuart. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Locations of part-time Japanese schools

Hello! Many part-time overseas Japanese schools (schools for Japanese citizens living overseas which hold classes on weekends) have a setup where they have the school office in one location, but use a rented facility (usually another school) to actually hold the classes. For example, Columbus Japanese Language School (Q97216986) has its administrative office in Worthington, but it uses a middle school in Marysville to conduct its classes.

I set the primary location to be the administrative office and not the classroom location. Would this be OK?

As for the one in Princeton, New Jersey (Q19840596), it has an office from Tuesday to Friday in Princeton, New Jersey, but its Sunday office and classroom space is at Rider University in Lawrence Township. Should the Princeton location be the primary location, or should it be the Rider University one? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Editing is broken on m.wikidata.org

I wasted like 45 minutes looking up guides and FAQs in order to figure out how to make a simple change, turns out it just doesn't work and you have to go on the desktop site. Sorry if this is the wrong place for such feedback but that's kind of bad. Asdf433 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Testing a new scholia-derived scraper

I have been working on a scholia-derived scraper (code at https://github.com/stuartyeates/scholia) which rather than being doi-centric is journal centric. That is it understands that journals have issues and issues have items in a hierarchy and crawls and links them appropriately. I'm aware that there are rules around bots and I'm a long way from running the scraper in a even a semi-automated fashion. I've got to to the point where I'm generating what look like good quick statement batches, but I've not actually tried executing them. My question really relates to testing the thing as I hand crank it: are people going to object if I import and then revert a couple of batches a dozen times as I iron out issues and get the coverage I'm looking for? My code is reasonably complex, because where items already exist for journals (which is where I'm starting) I'm trying to enhance them with proper RSS feeds, OAI-PMH info, etc, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: If I understand what you're asking, you probably should post this on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. Typically 50-100 edits are fine before approval of a new bot task. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you want to do. Do you suggest items to be created for the journal volumes and issues, or do you suggest to pull in full issues? Egon Willighagen (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The OJS software (which has >10000 installs and is the software I'm targeting), is issue-focused so provides clear, consistent and reliable metadata for issues, but not so much for volumes, so I'm creating items for issues but not volumes. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Described by source can only be used for "printed dictionaries and encyclopedias"

I thought this was settled years ago, but it has cropped up again. See the argument at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q126936162 as a rationale for deletion. Please contribute to the debate at Property_talk:P1343#Encyclopedias_and_dictionaries_only. While the property was created for encyclopedias and dictionaries in 2014 it has been expanded to other reliable sources that we have Wikidata entries for. The rationale for expanding its use was to make it unnecessary to create hyper-specific properties for news articles and books and obituaries. RAN (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Genes in Wikidata

The way that we handle genes in Wikidata is different from how they are handled on Wikipedia. For example, for the COX1 gene, Wikidata has items for:

But we don't have an item for the COX1 gene in general, a gene that is present in all eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, etc.). The Wikipedia article is about the gene in all eukaryotes, but it is linked only to COX1 (Q14865314) (the gene in humans). Every gene I've checked on Wikidata is set-up in the same way, with items for the genes in specific species, but no items for the genes in general. Should we create items for the genes in general and link those to the Wikipedia articles? If so, what properties should be used to connect the general items to the species-specific items? And I realize some genes are only known from specific groups of organisms or species, so this wouldn't necessarily apply to every gene. Nosferattus (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It does indeed sound like overkill, especially as found in taxon (P703) allows a list of species for the rarer ones. I'd ask in Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Biology, which is active. Vicarage (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

described at URL (P973) and tekstowo.pl (Q126379084)

There has been an influx of links using described at URL (P973) to add links to tekstowo.pl (Q126379084) such as this example. This looks like link spam, since the web address is a Web Portal, and not a database. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been raised in the past at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Reinheitsgebot#Please_stop, but is still continuing. They're very low-value links, often with nothing but low-quality user-submitted photos (if even that), and certainly should not be included using described at URL (P973). — Huntster (t @ c) 02:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
How about we just add the URL to the blacklist? Trade (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that might be the better solution. Not sure what the process for that is here. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Not if it's just the bot, which can be blocked if it continues (and if there are additions by other users of Mix'n'match, the data can be deleted there). Peter James (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Could you please add the URL to the blacklist @Lymantria:--Trade (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done --Lymantria (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC) P.S. Requests can be made at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.
Addition of the links had already stopped. The blacklist entry is likely to only have one effect - to make it impossible to revert an old version after vandalism or other incorrect edits. Peter James (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Check that, indeed too many false positives. I've removed it from the spam blacklist again. --Lymantria (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
There are still many instances added round that date, including [2], [3], and [4]. The ones I've found are all the result of mix-n-match, but none are from the same batch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Q75663418

At John Moncreiffe, 7th of that Ilk (Q75663418) it looks like there was a bad merge of two people with similar names. Anyone want to take on the challenge of sorting them out? RAN (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure Brussels (Q111901161) adheres to the notability policy

Hi,

I came across this entity and noticed that every identifier comes from the original entity (City of Brussels (Q239)).
This issue has been raised on the talk page. But I'm not convinced this is the right way to do things. RVA2869 (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Basically this is the issue I described in Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2023/01#natural_locality_vs_administrative_division.--GZWDer (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Monument in Chile is whole town that we have an item of

Hej, I stumbled upon San Pedro de Atacama (Q42897945), which describes a national monument of Chile. The monument classifies the whole town of San Pedro de Atacama (Q187893) as a Zona Típica, i.e. a traditional village. Should these be two seperate entities or should the two items be merged?

I reckon the classification should be similar to e.g. UNESCO heritage sites. Hence, we could use heritage designation (P1435)? (See Giza pyramid complex (Q12508) for an example.) Writing this out, I have actually become quite confident that this would be the correct process but since Wikidata still is an enigma to me at most times, I want to make sure :) Fallen Sheep (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, they should not be merged, this would result in a bunch of constraint violations. Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata’s 12th birthday & decentralized events in October 2024

Hello all,

Every year, the month of October is dedicated to celebrating Wikidata’s birthday, as our favorite Wikimedia project went live on October 29th, 2012. Since then, we’ve been celebrating together the achievements of the community, bringing together active editors and newcomers, and taking this opportunity to do outreach and bring more people onboard.

This year, for Wikidata’s 12th birthday, we would love to see many decentralized community events taking place all around the world in October and November.

Whether you are involved in a local chapter or user group, or in touch with another organization that could organize an event, or simply interested in connecting with other Wikidata editors, we invite you to start thinking about organizing a Wikidata birthday event in the upcoming months!

On the Twelfth Birthday page, you will find more information about the birthday and how to organize an event.

Wikidata birthday decentralized events are organized by local groups within the Wikidata community, onsite as well as online. They can take many forms and can be adapted to the wishes, languages, favorite topics and interests of the local group. It can be for example:

  • A meetup / get together with your local/regional community to share a piece of birthday cake ;
  • An online editing campaign to improve Wikidata together on a specific topic ;
  • A moment dedicated to celebrating Wikidata’s birthday during a Wikimedia conference ;
  • A “translathon” to improve the labels of Wikidata in your language ;
  • A workshop in a library or university to get more people aware of Wikidata ;
  • A livestream presentation to showcase interesting tools ;
  • …and many other things!

On the How to run an event page, you will find many other examples of events, and you can take inspiration from the past years and what other people have been organizing.

You will also find a communication kit with visuals that you can use to communicate about your event, and instructions on how to add your event to the global schedule.

If you are planning an event for Wikidata’s birthday, you may need some financial support in order to run the event smoothly. On the Funding page, you will find some useful information about how to get funding, to help your participants join or to provide equipment or refreshments.

What is new this year: Wikimedia Deutschland will run an experiment on providing microgrants to fund projects related to the Wikidata birthday. These grants, of a maximum amount of 1,000€, will be provided to the selected projects after an application process that is running until September 1st. You also have the option to ask for WMF’s Rapid Fund if the amount or eligibility criteria work better for you. You will find all the information about how to apply and what to prepare on the Funding page.

If you are interested in organizing an event, we strongly encourage you to do it together with other people. We suggest that you reach out to your local affiliate to get logistical and communication support, or to other Wikidata editors who share similar interests, for example your favorite WikiProject.

You are also very welcome to join the Wikidata Events Telegram group, in which you will find other community organizers who have been running events in the past and can answer your questions or provide inspiration. On top of that, we are running organizers office hours from July to October: you can join these online meetings to connect with other organizers and ask questions to the coordination team.

I’m looking forward to hearing about your Wikidata birthday events, and I’m available at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Best, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

empty items relating to EuroGames 2024 Vienna

Please do not delete empty items that are part of action on EuroGames 2024 Vienna as we have live event (with new contributors) for next 5 days and many sub-categories will be populated even if you find them empty. Thank you for understanding on behalf of #WikiLovesPride organizers. -- Zblace (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

How merge items ?

Hi guys, Can you tell me how merge these two items refearing to the same thing : Q51639 & Q15217318 ? Laszlo (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, these two objects cannot be merged, since they have sitelinks to
articles, which would leed to a conflict. Two objects only can be merged, if there is only at maximum one article per language version. M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.  

As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.

The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:

Individual vote:

Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).

Affiliates vote:

Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).

Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.  

With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.

We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.

The Charter Electoral Commission,

Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Create Event coordinators rights group (or just change rights set for current Account creators group)

Hi, I proposed to create a new Event coordinators rights group (or just change rights set for current Account creators group) for those who don't use outreach dashboard for promotional events. Please check Wikidata:Requests for comment/Clarify Wikidata:Account creators abilities and where to request#New proposal, thank you!--S8321414 (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

SPARQL query to sum number of seats of lower houses

Hi all, I am a bit new to Wikidata, and to SPARQL even more. I created Lower houses of the European Union (Q127603696) to specifically list all relevant lower houses in the EU (and the matching Upper houses of the European Union (Q127603941)). I am now trying to find a way to sum the number of seats (P1342) of each of these lower houses. I tried my luck with the Wikidata_talk:SPARQL_tutorial and the Wikidata Query Service, and even asked on the live chat, but was not able to find the solution, which I believe should not be too complicated. A side question is: how can I then use this query as a figure on Wikipedia? I am trying to replace a string of manually-entered figures there (which would be good since the number of seats of lower houses is otherwise hard to keep track of). Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The folks at Wikidata:Request_a_query are very helpful Vicarage (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thank you! Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Casualty counts - include perpetrators?

Greetings,

Over on Talk:Q127421251#Casualty count I'm questioning our method of tallying the count of victims/casualties/injuries. Currently over there (and other items such as Orlando nightclub shooting (Q24561572), the casualties are tallied with both excluding (P1011) and including (P1012) qualifiers. Personally, I feel this is somewhat unwieldy that we're maintaining and referencing two parallel datasets, where one value can be inferred from the others.

Is there consensus, or a lack thereof, on how to count these? Has there been any prior discussion or dispute in this area? Should we take cues from established decisions such as enwiki's? Elizium23 (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trade now insists that any perpetrator (P8031) does not count as a victim(s) (P8032) and that these qualities are, in fact, mutually exclusive. In fact to the point that they seemed quite upset that I would even imply that Crooks was some sort of victim in all this.
My common sense says that he is indeed a "shooting victim" as well as "homicide victim" (justifiable as it was, homicide is still homicide). Consensus appears to disagree with my opinion, but it'd be good to hear some more opinions on that point as well. (In fact some of the other items I checked even excluded perpetrators who committed suicide, which sure as hell seems like victimhood to me. In fact I could boldly argue that most of these type events are "suicide by cop" situation that few perps wver intended to survive.) Elizium23 (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Use number of victims of killer (P1345) and number of deaths (P1120) without qualifiers, the difference being 1. number of casualties (P1590) is fairly useless if we insist on recording minor injuries, but then the ear is consequential, the ankle is not. It is distasteful to label perpetrators as victims. Vicarage (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I can see your perspective here, because obviously this incident involved one very bad man against many heavily armed good guys. The bad man doesn't deserve victimhood and it was totally legal to gun him down in the act. He got what he deserved?
So let's explore another few corner cases.
  • Rodney King (Q338389) was driving while intoxicated at 117mph. Now that's clearly a criminal offense in itself and has potential for vehicular manslaughter and worse, right? So in the process of perpetrating a crime, the police beat him mercilessly, which was found, in a court of law much later, to be a crime in itself. So with hindsight 20/20, who's a perpetrator and who's a victim for that event?
  • Jeffrey Dahmer (Q298364) was an extremely prolific and brutal serial killer who was killed in prison. Was Dahmer still a perpetrator at the time of death, or a defenseless victim? Don't forget that Dahmer was really bad and perhaps Scarver considered him deserving of death, although the courts couldn't obtain that sort of justice at the time.
  • Lee Harvey Oswald (Q48745) was fatally shot by Jack Ruby (Q192519) who wasn't law enforcement and probably also a bad man. Was Oswald a victim at that point? Would that change if Ruby had been a badge-wearing Good Guy instead?
  • Jesus (Q302) was a dangerous revolutionary/heretic figure. He was justly tried by the Sanhedrin as well as the Imperial authority and a death sentence was duly carried out, in order to minimize the harm that could come to Israel or Rome because of his teachings. Who knows how many victims that perpetrator could've racked up in 2000 years?! The State+Church also took care of perpetrators in the Albigensian Crusade (Q51657) and Joan of Arc (Q7226). Whew.
  • Lastly, consider the recent anniversary of the execution of the Romanov family (Q1356047). The Romanovs were ruling Russia, with the Divine Right of Kings and legal succession. They enjoyed every prerogative of state power and they really used it! They were also brutally executed: tsar, wife and children. How many should be listed as victims, how many cannot be considered victims at all, and how many perpetrators were killed that day?
I hope that these horrific examples drive home a point or two about the intrinsic humanity and equality of these "bad guys". I sincerely hope that we here can neutrally and dispassionately discern victimhood of a violent act, apart from perpetration of an evil crime, because IMHO, the latter does not preclude the former in any way.
Oh, I'd be willing to bet that nobody is willing to list the Secret Service agents as "perpetrators", and that's a harder question, because "perpetration" connotes/implies something illegal, but strictly speaking, they were belligerents and combatants in this fracas just as much as Crooks was, and indeed deserve the badge of victimhood for injuries. It's just not so easy when you try to carve a moat of "bad guy" around some of the casualties in any given event. And that's the intent here, after all: you need to label some "good" and some "bad" and a "bad person" can't be labeled "victim" because that evokes sympathy and defenselessness for you, even though you just read the dictionary definition of the word.
If you want to use number of victims of killer (P1345) as suggested, that's great, because "killer" is a morally neutral term to describe Secret Service agents! So how many killers were there? Did only one agent perforate Crooks, or was there a whole firing squad involved?
If y'all want to subclass this down to "innocent victims", or "defenseless victims", or "court-adjudicated victims", by all means go ahead, but a shooting victim is a shooting victim, at the end of the day, whether they went out in a blaze of glory or had an ignominious end. Elizium23 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
You're over-thinking. For each illegal event (and for that purpose we exclude most acts of war, as barring agreed war crimes, they are legal) within the jurisdiction at the time, we have perpetrators and victims. We don't assess the moral status of the people involved, branches of the state acting under legal authority cannot be perpetrators. number of victims of killer (P1345) should have killer changed to perpetrator. As you work more with WD you will realise life is messy, and its a big mistake to try and handle edge cases by complicating the more straightforward examples. This is a classic computer programmer weakness. Vicarage (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
So if "branches of the state" cannot be perpetrators then you're using a narrow and legal definition of that. Also we see an attempt to narrow other terms like "homicide" and "victim" but the definitions we work with, and the qualities of the properties and items here, belie those usages.
Y'all can't have it both ways. Semantics and edge cases ARE extremely important. Wikidata is perfectly capable of modeling a lot of messy stuff until humans insert emotions and moral judgement and become irrational and biased about this stuff. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems to be an argument around semantics. As for whether you should count the shooter among the dead, why not? If it's properly qualified, who cares either way? The more interesting discussion centers around whether you should list the perpetrator among the victims and I tend to agree with Trade here. The words imply guilt or innocence. Homicide also implies a killing was unlawful as opposed to a justified killing. Now there may indeed by cases where these are not mutually exclusive, if someone puts a gun to their own head and fires they are presumably both. One also need to take into account the context here. Trump was a victim by the shooting by Crooks, while Crooks was not a victim by that same action. The two killings/attempts were related, but not based on the same action. Infrastruktur (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Correct: we do not judge an individual's morality when assessing victimhood. Nor is the term "homicide" a moral judgement: while it carries a connotation of illegality or "murder" it has a more inclusive definition. Crooks' death was a homicide equal to Comperatore's; LEO's injured ankle was a victim/casualty in this well-defined event, and Crooks himself is unambiguously a victim of shooting/homicide. Any arguments against these semantics rely on emotion, bias, or moral judgement. I have no idea how an "illegal act" changes anything (see my list of examples: there are more where that came from)
This event encompasses more than "guy takes gun and shoots it" this was a rally with security and multiple actors in a shootout situation. An injured ankle casualty is a victim of the event due to direct involvement, not Crooks' gun. Crooks paid the price of his action becoming a shooting/homicide victim. No judgement and he didn't turn on himself, but this event is more than "bad guy shoots orange man's ear." Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Zebra swallowtail / scientific names

Am I right in thinking that two scientific names for the w:zebra swallowtail should be separate items, even if they are the exact same subject? And that Wikipedia articles should be moved to one of the two items depending on what their title is?

The items are Protographium marcellus (Q3016214) and Zebra Swallowtail (Q21163005). I notice that the English Wikipedia article has a different title than all the others. 136.152.209.67 20:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Start time/end time of logos

Special:Diff/2208054935 gave a single-value constraint warning. Should it be done some other way? The logo was used, then replaced, then changed back again. Jonteemil (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jonteemil there are two start time (P580) RVA2869 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, yeah? There are. Jonteemil (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: Constraint violation warnings are advisory, not mandatory. If you are aware of a small number of exceptions to a constraint you can add them I think in property documentation to remove the warning. If there are a large number of violations then maybe the constraint is wrong and should be removed - discuss on the property talk page. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The question was if I had done it correctly, because the display isn't really that optimal. It should be more like: 1905-2017, 2022-, the first end time should be shown before the second start time, otherwise it looks weird, like it does now. Jonteemil (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Just have two statements about the same logo with different time. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Wasn't that what I tried to do? Jonteemil (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
This is what I mean: Special:PermaLink/2208672948#P154. Free of any warnings. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about properties

Are we now creating properties to reference aspirational projects with no more that a few hundred links, but with the intention of having more? Because I always assumed about a thousand was sort of the bottom limit. I opposed this one and just received a notice it was created Women in Resistance ID (P12902) Jane023 (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The recommendation is to decline properties that can't be used on more than 100 items. If it's not above this, then votes doesn't matter. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks I thought the limit was 1000. I will try to remember 100 from now on. Jane023 (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Preventing bad merges

I patrol Wikidata:Database reports/items with P569 greater than P570 and reverse bad merges where the birth and death dates do not match triggering an entry in the report. Is there any way we can add a warning during the merge process when the birth, and or, the death dates are off by at least 3 years? It would cause the person merging to double check that they have the correct person. At Familysearch you get a warning when this occurs, it would be helpful here. RAN (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Bug: Facebook pages URL are wrong

Every politian (and maybe every popular person) that has a Facebook page there is the field to add the username, let's say "myusername". The bug is that Wikidata is adding "/page" in the URL so it's pointing to facebook.com/page/myusername and it's a 404 not found error. Example: Q4137510

I don't know how to get rid of "/page/" in the URL. I might be wrong but I think this is a global Wikidata bug. 2802:8012:5319:FF00:ECA1:37BC:3D5D:99CE 07:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Verification of your claim failed in my case. The corresponding URL formater is correct and does not seem to have been changed recently. —Mykhal (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
… and if you mean at eswiki(pedia) for the example (here), it's not related to wikidata; and I also cannot confirm trailing slash being a problem. —Mykhal (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
There are five properties with "Facebook" in the name, and the identifier in Q4137510 correctly uses Facebook username (P2013), but Q4137510#P856 had Facebook page ID (P4003) (with "/pages/" in the URL) in the references, which I changed to Facebook username (P2013). Peter James (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I confirm that now is working correctly. 190.176.187.23 10:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to share the result of some work I recently undertook to link all UEFA teams (eg Spain at the UEFA European Championship 2024 (Q124150793)) since the championship began in 1960 to the players that played on their teams. This was a semi-automated approach where I copied player tables on the French or German Wikipedia pages, used a custom little interface to convert them to QuickStatements which added the links to Wikidata. Some were already there, but in total there are now 4695 linkages! Besides the player themselves, some teams also have extra information, like player position, number of games played, goals scored, or jersey number. But these weren't consistently present on the Wikipedia pages themselves, so aren't always present.

Here are some SPARQL queries to explore the results:

There is one team which I haven't completed, Czech Republic at the UEFA European Championship 2004 (Q115647657), which is peculiarly the only team that does not have a French or German Wikipedia page! If I can find data for that somewhere, will import it as well.

Cheers, Hardwigg (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the only team with no French article, but there is Czech Republic at the UEFA European Championship 2004 (Q1318209) in German and Ukrainian. Peter James (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh fantastic, thank you for merging! Just ran the quickstatement import; now it's all! Hardwigg (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

How are images selected?

I am rather new to Wikidata so forgive me. How are images selected for items? If it is just up to random volunteers, how are disputes resolved? I am looking at Menhera (Q126181232). Commander Keane (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It is up to random volunteers, if there is edit-warring it should be resolved via usual means. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
See related discussion, at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bupuro-chan.png. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Gabon - description

Hello everyone, can you change the description of Gabon. It's a country located in central Africa not in Western Africa. Thanks ! Apipo1907 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple national versions of one name - how to manage iwiki

Hello, I made today Czech Wikipedia article Q127686635 (and Wikidata item) but on Wikidata is unclear situation. This name has Slavic equivalents: Q11763130, Q13566215, Q100376113, Q100376283, maybe even more. I got it, every variant should have its own Wikidata item because it has its own transliteration, language, script etc. But what I didnt got - How to manage iwiki? Its not possible to have for example in Czech Wikipedia own article for every single variant of this name. We have one common article for all wariants. So how to manage iwiki? Now I made it by adding all of Wikipedia pages to only one Wikidata item of only one name variant: Q13566215. But is it correct? Does exist any more clear, systematic solution? For example I feel the best way would be to leave all Wikipedia links in correct Wikidata item, but have possibility to say to system "these items are iwiki related" and then more Wikidata items will be connected in iwiki section on Wikipedia. Thank you for your opinions and experiences. Palu (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding links to different variants to one item is simply not correct. Revert these changes, simply use old style interwiki. See Wikidata:WikiProject Names for more insight. Jklamo (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, not correct, but have no iwiki is also not correct. OK, old-style wiki is possible, but for me also not correct (not systematic). But it looks there is no better solution. Maybe later will arise...? --Palu (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jklamo: Old style interwiki should be considered deprecated way to represent the information. Instead, it should be solved via sitelinks to redirects.--GZWDer (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much. Here is example and works great. --Palu (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
GZWDer: But what I have to say - its pity that you have to make it for every one wikipedia extra. Now Czech works well, you can see links to others, but from others you cant. If you want, you have add every redirect links to every Wikidata item. And it is quite hard to manage, especially when there is many linked Wikidata items. And it is hard to maintain in time (pages are changing and you have to change every single Wikidata item extra). --Palu (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Same situation: Q58710354. 3 different Wikidata item, each has own Wikipedia article, iwiki not working. --Palu (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

New "mul" term language code on Wikidata

(This [SIGNIFICANT Change Announcement] is relevant for all Wikidata users working with Labels and Aliases.)

Hello,

You may recall our previous announcement inviting you to test out the “default values for all languages” feature, introducing the language code "mul" for labels and aliases, on https://test.wikidata.org. I'm pleased to announce that we are now proceeding with a limited release on Wikidata. This feature will be available for testing starting July 29.

Note of Caution and Tips for Testing

  • To try out the new feature during this limited release, you need to add the language code “mul” to your Babel boxes. A full release will follow on the week of August 12, displaying default values to everyone by default.
  • Please refrain from starting any Bot-runs for mul during the limited release. We will use this limited release to test the performance and verify that everything works as planned. Bot-runs for mul should only commence after the full feature is released.
  • Please also test the help page explaining how to use the feature. It will be important to get this help page right, as the full release will initially contain an onboarding element that guides people to this help page.

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in the previous testing phases or provided feedback thus far. We are eager to hear more from you during this limited release. Please do not hesitate to reach out with questions or concerns on the talk page of the Help page, or for technical details, in this Phabricator ticket (phab:T356169)

There has also been some discussion on the help page regarding the copy used for the language. We would like to reach a consensus before the full release. Join the discussion to add your thoughts and input on the thread. This week, a survey will be included in the Weekly Summary for those who prefer to provide anonymous feedback.

Cheers! -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

How to model crimes

See: Lindbergh kidnapping (Q844495) where the crime is modeled multiple ways, what is the standard way we are going to harmonize on? RAN (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #637

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-07-22. Please help Translate.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • DannyS712 bot - Task/s: I want to get approval for a bot with translation admin rights that will automatically mark pages for translations if and only if the latest version is identical to the version that is already in the translation system, i.e. only pages with no "net" changes in the pending edits.
    • DerIchBot - Task/s: Adding data about schools provided by the German and Austrian governments to wikidata.
    • DifoolBot 5 - Task/s: Change reference URLs into the related ID property and merge references with the same ID property.
    • AroundTheBot - Task/s: Automated import of Albanian nouns with IPA from Wiktionary, with the long-term goal of using this data to do pronunciation-based comparison/word evolution between languages.

Events

  • Past: Wikimedia Indonesia hosted the 2024 Data Visualization Competition from June 5 to 18. The event featured data visualizations (posters and graphics) and short essays using data from Wikidata. Visit the competition page (in Indonesian) to view the winning entries.
  • Upcoming: Wikidata's 12th birthday decentralized events will take place in October and November 2024. Feel free to browse the documentation pages to learn how to organize an event in your area, get funding, and get in touch with other organizers.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Paulina, a new tool for exploring public domain works.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • WMF Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) invites interested volunteers to apply. As part of the movement strategy recommendation for "Coordinating Across Stakeholders," the PTAC will bring technical contributors and the Wikimedia Foundation together to co-define a more resilient, future-proof technological platform.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • mul: We fixed the last blocker for the limited MUL rollout to Wikidata on July 29th (phab:T362917)
  • EntitySchemas:
  • Query Service: preparation for the graph split is continuing by the Search Platform Team. We started looking into adapting the constraints checks for it (phab:T369079)

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

Invalid none-of constraint on owned_by

owned by (P127) has a none-of constraint (Q52558054) with item of property constraint (P2305)Government of India (Q2767140) and replacement value (P9729)India (Q668) qualifier. I think it is incorrect and should be the other way around. DaxServer (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sovereign countries

There are several items denoted as 'sovereign countries' http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q3624078 which are probably not, or collide with other entries:

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q756617

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q127424576

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q100748892

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q124653007

What is the policiy about such items? AridOcean (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

countries are a can of worms, not only in their definition, and historical layering, but people's strongly held views that the world's power structures should be different to how they are. BTW If you use the Q template you can get the names in the message, as in Kingdom of Denmark (Q756617) Vicarage (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Lack of collaboration regarding historical periods

What on earth is going on with the gatekeeping at Q6495391 ("late modern period")? I've tried to explain very clearly how this term is a Wikipedia-peddled neologism that isn't actually used by historians. The term itself fails the criteria for notability and original research and the majority of the links here are further extensions of this. I've tried to removed links to articles that obviously don't translate to "early modern" or simply doesn't match the period. Or both! I have been repeatedly reverted purely on unexplained procedural grounds.

I've been told[5] by @CFA1877 to "find a solution" before removing errors and that is just bonkers behavior in my book. I'm trying to correct false equivalents, which is a perfectly natural way of working with Wikimedia projects. If someone tries to translate "lion" as "tiger" here and links the two objects, I can't imagine anyone protesting. I have no idea what problems could be caused by removing objects, but it certainly is a problem if WikiData is hosting false information. If there are problems, it's obviously something that users can suggest their own solutions for.

@Olea and @Sofie Geneea, you're party to this conflict as well. Neither of you have bothered to motivate why you are restoring bad info. How are you justifying your approach to this? Peter Isotalo (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking into account that Q6495391 is used profusely, every time you have deleted all the information from the wikidata item, that information disappeared too in the Commons infoboxes and only "Q6495391" appeared. In the case of Spain, the mention of "Contemporary Age" disappeared. Regarding the historiographical question, I think it can be easily resolved by changing "late modern period" to "Contemporary Age", which is the most used element in Q6495391. But the solution cannot be, in any way, a mass deletion, creating more problems and conflicting with many users. CFA1877 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
What Commons infoboxes? Be specific rather than just allude at the issues. Peter Isotalo (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Any of the pages listed at commons:Special:EntityUsage/Q6495391 of which there are over 1000. William Graham (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Are all of these assigned to Q6495391 directly? Has it been done manually for all of them? Peter Isotalo (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Because Wikidata is structured, sometimes it has more than one item about what some would regard as different definitions of the same thing. For example the subject of Modern History MA (Honours) is the "modern period", and the subject of Themes in Late Modern History (c. 1776 - 2001) is the "modern period", of which the "early modern period" is a part? Although that example is not from Wikidata, there could be statements in Wikidata for which a second item is useful (as well as being necessary for the sitelinks), and although they can have the same label and be distinguished by description, an alternative name can be less confusing whether it's this or another name. Examples of use:[6][7][8][9]. The false information I found was the description of various articles as being about the period starting in 1945 and that was the result of moving the sitelinks without changing the descriptions and statements to match the changed scope of the items. The Commons infoboxes affected are many of the items in Special:WhatLinksHere/Q6495391; some are buildings and other structures where it is a qualifier in instance of (P31) (example: Q1862973#P31, which was added to Q97641882 before that item was merged to Q1862973), where it is probably not necessary and would be better not displayed in Commons if years are present (there was also an incorrect end time (P582) qualifier added at the same time) but there are other statements such as field of work (P101) where a label is useful. Peter James (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Historians these days (and probably since the late 1990s) use "modern period" for anything after the early modern period. In other words "the period we live in now". It's possible that some historians still use "modern period" to everything after the Middle Ages until now, but it's probably quite rare.
I've never seen a historian describe the early modern period as being "part" of the modern period. Again, that's a Wikipedia-generated misunderstanding. Peter Isotalo (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Let us not omit major schools of thought which propose late modernity (Q4346302) as well as postmodernity (Q2249769); these items do not appear to be infected with the conflation of concepts which has caused this dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Late modernity and postmodernity are perfectly valid and widely recognized topics in their own right. They just don't correspond to the term "late modern period". Peter Isotalo (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
If we asked ten different scholars what defines these periods, what comprises them, what differentiates them, etc. it seems like we would receive ten different answers. Not only would we have different labels for the same thing--we'd have the same labels for different things, and so on.
It's a multidisciplinary concern, and so we can't simply consider history, but any scholarship that deals with changes over time, so I can't see a way to satisfy everyone with every need.
Perhaps it would help to sample these definitions, get an overview of how they're defined, and work out some diagrams, schemas of how they could be represented through Wikidata. It may result in the restructuring of many items across many wikis, but only a minority of the stakeholders are active here on this project, so a wider/more central venue for discussion would be appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Q15722637

Hi! I wonder if Category:GFDL works (Q15722637) matches any other Q here. What about Category:Wikipedia articles licensed under the GNU Free Document License (Q8109484)? It is stated to be different from Category:GFDL files (Q7237102) but it links to the category on Commons that links to Category:GFDL files (Q7237102). MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) fixed to use template Vicarage (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to personal pronoun (P6553)

Introduction

Wikidata: WikiProject Personal Pronouns has set out to clean up Wikidata’s modeling and implementation of personal pronoun data. This data is currently inconsistent, difficult to query, and frequently inaccurate. What follows is our detailed proposal to remedy this situation, which we hope to implement on July 24, 2024.

Background

Problems with personal pronoun (P6553)

  • Messy data modeling and false statements:
    • Personal pronouns are modeled as individual lemmas, as pronoun set items, and as items representing individual pronouns
    • Values exist which are not third person pronouns at all, but things like honorifics
  • Individual pronouns as lexemes don’t account for cases where a principal pronoun isn’t enough to go on to identify a pronoun set (for instance, “ze/zir” vs. “ze/hir”). Therefore, lexemes cannot be consistently implemented with accuracy
  • Inferring gender identity based on personal pronouns, and vice versa, is inaccurate and causes disproportionate harm to marginalized groups

Proposed Changes

Use Cases

The following use cases support the need for the proposed data structure. Many more can be provided.

Implementation Plan

Scope of Use

5,945 items in Wikidata use P6553 (as of 2024-05-29 using this query) ~60 items have more than one statement/value pair for P6553, so there are a total of 6,005 statements using P6553 (as of 2024-05-29 using this query)

5,920 of these pronoun statements have values that are actually pronouns rather than honorifics, etc. (as of 2024-05-29 using this query)

2,296 of these statements have a value of “he” (as of 2024-05-29 using this query), 2,595 have a value of “she” (as of 2024-05-29 using this query), and 701 have a value of “they” (as of 2024-05-29 using this query) leaving 328 statements with other values

All valid P6553 statements have values from a small group of 63 lemmas (as of 2024-05-29 using this query) from sixteen languages (as of 2024-05-29 using this query)

Language-Lemma count chart:
Count on left, language on right

Language-Lemma Count breakdown:
Bokmål/Nynorsk = 4
Catalan = 3
Dutch = 5
English = 14
Esperanto = 8
French = 4
German = 7
Japanese = 4
Latin = 1
Portuguese = 3
Spanish = 5
Swedish = 3
Yiddish = 1
Yoruba = 1

Partnerships

Data Model

Building Pronoun Sets

Data Cleanup

Rodriguez.UW (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Strong support I fully support these changes and am committed to participating in their implementation. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a great idea, I fully support it. Brimwats (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clements.UWLib, are you now changing other people's comments to include {{Strong support}} templates? I recommend that you revert your modifications, and cease that activity, which is imposing your own interpretations on someone else's contextual words. @Brimwats and the others can speak for themselves, whether their support/opposition is full/strong/weak/whatever, okay? Elizium23 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Brimwats hi, trying to make it clearer how many supports/opposes we have. Would you make it clear (if you choose)? --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to add:  Strong support Brimwats (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose while its a thread on this page. It needs to be a RFC, and the proposers need to address the concerns raised here when posting one. Vicarage (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I also support this project and will be ale to assist in implementing the proposal. Mferpc (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This seems like a bad idea. Pronouns are lexicographical data and should exist as lexemes. If the lexeme data is inconsistent, it can and should be improved. Items are not inherently more consistent than lexemes, and creating new entities instead of fixing the existing ones won't make the data better - it will actually result in duplication of data, which then leads to problems with data getting out of sync.
It's completely possible to have multiple lexemes with the same subject form and different object forms (e.g. sier (L304659) vs sier (L304660)). If your objection is that the links don't display the object form, that is a data display issue, not a problem with the data itself.
Lexemes have forms with grammatical features, allowing machines to select the correct form in different sentences (e.g. "I see them" versus "They see me"). You haven't explained how that will work with your proposal.
I don't think it makes sense to remove all mentions of gender. Whether you like it or not, people do associate pronouns with gender and there is a lot of correlation between someone's gender identity and the gender of the pronouns they use. Removing links to other properties and aliases for terms that people do use makes things harder to find, and makes it more likely that they will do things like add sex or gender (P21) based on pronouns, because they are more likely to be unaware that we even have a separate property for pronouns.
The existence of languages which don't have gendered pronouns does not seem relevant. If a language doesn't have multiple pronouns for the same grammatical person/number, then I don't see how personal pronoun (P6553) would be useful. If you know of another distinction used for pronouns referring to other people, other than gender and formality, I would love to know about it (and it would be relevant to Wikidata:Lexicographical data in general).
I don't think unsourced statements for a property should be mass removed before making an effort to add sources. Creating lists of statements with issues and encouraging people to help fix the issues would be a perfect task for a wikiproject.
- Nikki (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Also pinging @BlaueBlüte who already responded to your proposal on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Personal Pronouns back in May. - Nikki (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that we missed this question. I just answered it (late). The reason why we want to change this property datatype from Lexeme to Item is in order to facilitate personal pronoun sets that use pronouns from different lexemes. For example, "they/xe" in the use case of Dua Saleh. Lexemes cannot represent this pronoun set, but a Wikidata item can. It can also point to the appropriate (distinct) lexemes as parts. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nikki Lexemes could be linked from pronoun set items as parts, but as we stated in this proposal, individual lexemes are not enough to go on much of the time to identify pronoun sets. We gave examples and fully explained why lexemes are not appropriate or sufficient for personal pronoun sets. These examples aren't different senses of the same word, but often distinct words in different senses. Lexemes would still exist, but would not be used as values for this particular property. Rather, they would be parts of sets. Which is how people use them. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You have not clearly demonstrated why lexemes are not appropriate or sufficient though. It is possible to link to multiple lexemes. It is possible to use qualifiers such as object form (P5548) if it's really necessary. If you don't know how to model something in Wikidata, it would be a better idea to ask us how it can be modelled, before deciding it's not possible and the entire model needs to be changed.
Dua Saleh (Q84766127) already has links to lexemes for they and xe, Mel Baggs (Q4080459) already has links to lexemes for sie/hir and ze/zer. Conchita Wurst (Q113581) could link to he (L485) and she (L484) with qualifiers (I'm not sure which property would fit best off the top of my head, but we can create more properties if necessary).
You should explain how machines are going to be able to use the data with your model. Projects such as Abstract Wikipedia need to be able to select the right pronouns for someone, which means saying things like "they" is the subject form and "them" is the object form in a machine-readable way.
- Nikki (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this feedback. We do need to learn more about lexemes; BlaueBlüte has been generous with their knowledge and explained that they are more flexible than we previously understood them to be. We truly did not know that distinct declension patterns for the same word could be reflected in different lemmas, or that a lemma could include a declension pattern sourced from multiple words. This information was really encouraging to learn and would have been useful to know, but we just didn't know it. When you say to "ask us" how something should be modelled, whom do you mean, @User:Nikki? I have questions all the time about how things are or ought to be modeled in Wikidata. Often questions in Telegram go unanswered or get buried quickly, and I don't see data modeling questions on the email listserv. It would be great to know where to ask. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
+1 to Crystals question--where am I supposed to send students and editors with questions about Lexemes? The documentation is sorely lacking. Brimwats (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 Support I support the goals of this project. Wikidata editors should not be supplying sex or gender (P21) based on a person's pronouns. And sex or gender (P21) should not be used to supply personal pronoun (P6553) without references that document a person's choice of their pronouns. The more that can be done to prevent misgendering people in Wikidata, the better. AdamSeattle (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey Adam, for the sake of clearly seeing who supports and opposes, an oppose/support would be useful in your comment. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussions on Project Chat (or any other project pages) aren't decided by counting "votes". Instead we try to reach consensus. Pestering people into using a voting template isn't the best look. William Graham (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Are there guidelines for consensus on contentious topics where everyone does not agree on the best course of action that you can point me to? This has always been a murky area of Wikidata governance for me, and envisioning what "consensus" looks like in a conversation where you have two camps who do not and probably won't see eye to eye is really difficult. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 Strong oppose I don't understand why "Change data type from Lexeme to Wikidata Item", it would be a lot of work for no gain (I would even say it would be a loss, as the data would be poorer). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The gain would be solving the problem we point out here: "Individual pronouns as lexemes don’t account for cases where a principal pronoun isn’t enough to go on to identify a pronoun set (for instance, “ze/zir” vs. “ze/hir”). Therefore, lexemes cannot be consistently implemented with accuracy". It would not be very much work, and we laid out a very detailed implementation plan for doing the work. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Presumably the Items would link to Lexemes, which brings the benefit of rich-data quality.
But, as Crystal described, the issue here is that, while he (L485) then provides him (L485-F2), but an Item can more easily make visually clear the distinction between ze (L304664) (which uses zer (L304664-F2)) and ze (L1230597) (which uses hir (L1230597-F2)).
The Item would then, presumably, have a label of "ze/hir" and Properties aligning with
and so on.
This doesn't feel like there'd be any data-quality loss here, merely adding an extra — more detailed — layer between the property on a biography Item and the Lexeme entries OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clements.UWLib: I'm sorry but I still don't understand. Could you point to one item where there is problem with the current model? « It would not be very much work » you seem over-optismistic, creating a property is at least a month, deleting a property can take years (and all the mess in between of having two competing properties), plus you'll need to create thousands of items (for what: just to replicate data we already have on Lexemes?), that really seems like a lot of works. @OwenBlacker: I'm even more confused. Maybe there is a problem with the current lexemes, their content and how their used but I don't see the problem with the model itself. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(1) this should be an RFC, not an announcement on (English) Project Chat
(2) In principle I think the item datatype may make sense here, but I don't understand how you would label or make consistent across languages. That needs to be discussed: would a person with "ze/zer" in English have a consistent label in every other language, or might different people make different choices in other languages? If consistent translations are expected then an item seems fine, otherwise I think this needs to stick with lexeme datatype.
(3) Technically I don't believe the datatype can be just "replaced" - a new property would need to be created for the new datatype, and data migrated etc. As User:VIGNERON notes this would be considerable work fixing the ~6000 statements.
ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
We just asked in the Administrators' noticeboard about the process for requesting changes to properties, and you were one of the people who gave us feedback saying this was a good way to go and gave us further suggestions for how to go about this properly. I am confused about why you are now saying it should be done differently @ArthurPSmith. Is it because you don't agree with the proposed changes? --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clements.UWLib, only two people replied to you in that discussion. @Ymblanter and @ArthurPSmith. It is not clear whether they were aware of the massive scope and depth of your intended proposal (because you were asking about a generality and not linking to specifics.) You implied that you wanted to change a single property or something. Indeed, the scope of your proposal appeared quite trivial there, compared to the overhaul you're actually hatching in this proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clements.UWLib: To be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that you shouldn't have posted this in Project Chat; I'm glad you did. But the scope of the change is more than we would normally handle this way. Particularly as it most likely will heavily involve data concerning living people, and the lexeme-related aspect implies significant cross-language synchronization which I don't see covered here yet. And technically because it requires creating a new property, not just changing an existing one. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
How and where does one post an RFC? And how does this proposal require creating a new property? --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
To create an RFC, follow the instructions on the "Requests for comment" link at the top of this page. The data type change from Lexeme to Item value means it can't just be altered, a new property is needed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize that data type changes weren't possible. So, is what we are suggesting in fact the cancellation of one property in favor of a new one? How does that work? Thank you for the feedback. Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clements.UWLib: When you have a consensus on the change (ideally determined by an admin or other non-involved person closing the RFC with an assessment in favor of the change) then a property proposal for the new property should be straightforward, and the property can usually be created in a week or so. Then migration of the old values to the new values (to the extent that is wanted). And then a proposal for deletion of the old property would be needed, on the Properties for Deletion page. ArthurPSmith (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
We do want to change a single property. This doesn't have massive scope or depth beyond the single property we're talking about and the cleanup work we and our project partners would complete. The data is already a messy mix of items and lemmas I don't understand why this is being perceived as some sort of overhaul. This would be a cleanup and implementation of a coherent data model in place of no coherent data model. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that a fair amount of the cleanup work could be automated. It's not especially complex and ~6000 records for cleanup frankly isn't a huge amount. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
+1 on VIGNERON's and Arthur's points. Most importantly, let's not discuss it here. A dedicated RfC or conversation at the property's discussion page will be better suited for a proposal like this. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Conversation has been ongoing on the property's discussion page for quite some time, and we believe reflects consensus on the proposed changes. We brought it here because we thought the broader community should have input before we moved ahead with the changes. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 Info AFAICT, the recent conversation on Property talk:P6553 has consistently been about whether personal pronoun (P6553) should ever be added to historical bio items (such as George Washington (Q23)) based solely on socially ascribed sex-or-gender, as opposed to self-usage by the item's subject (as might be readily ascertained even for some historical people, e.g. by referencing the subject's own writings). For what it's worth, I agree that adding P6553 claims based solely on such inferences would be quite inappropriate, disrespectful and, in a way, even silly. Inferences in the reverse direction are a different story however: there seems to be a de-facto consensus that recording even inferred sex-or-gender data about especially obscure historical people, such may only be known from their contributions to academic research or creative works, may in fact be valuable, since it can enhance our understanding of structural biases that may still be very relevant in the present day. --Hupaleju (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 Leaning oppose Inferring sex or gender from gender-specific pronouns or styles (i.e. the "Mr."/"Mstr." vs. "Mrs."/"Miss" or whatever) comes up all the time when dealing with obscure historical people, including e.g. people involved in research or contributors to creative works. The gold standard will always be self-identification of preferred gender of course, but realistically that's going to be exceedingly rare for pre-20th century humans, and still somewhat uncommon even afterwards. I'm all for explicitly disclaiming this practice wrt. Wikidata:Living people where concerns about both individual privacy and harmful misrepresentation of marginalized gender-non-conforming groups will be rather more relevant; but recording sex-or-gender inferences about people in history is widely seen as useful for, e.g. extracting gender representation statistics wrt. Wikidata itself or subsets thereof. --Hupaleju (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem with this that we see is that people's gender identities, past and present, do not always align with the gender identities others attach to personal pronoun sets. This leads to misgendering, and the erasure of gender identities outside the "male/female" binary in the way it's been applied in Wikidata. This misgendering disproportionately affects people who fall outside the gender binary. For living people, that can be dangerous. For historical people, it's disrespectful. We're not asking for historical data not to be recorded. Just for binary gender information not to be assumed based on a person's personal pronouns. Extracting gender representation statistics is important, but shouldn't they include gender non-binary folks? Shouldn't they be accurate? These inferences create biased, inaccurate data that skews towards erasure of gender identities outside the gender binary. That matters a lot, even for people no longer living. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Per the reasoning above, please convert this from an announcement into an RFC for debate and discussion. I am concerned with data loss or loss of precision in moving from lexemes to items. I concur with the fact that inferred sex happens routinely from historical documents. I am also concerned with the proliferation of en:Neopronouns and their associated burden of maintenance. The English Wikipedia tends not to indulge these neopronouns in article prose. Is it Wikidata's intent to catalog, document, and apply neopronouns in a completely credulous fashion? It is a fact that neopronouns can and will be used to troll and disrupt communications. It would be inadvisable for us to take them always at face value. Lastly, I am concerned about the size and scope of these changes. This is a large proposal, and difficult for us to digest as a monolith. Perhaps itemize it, prioritize elements of it, and propose options/choices within each major decision. A proper RFC should have a central and identifiable proposal for debate, and not a lot of moving parts! Elizium23 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course it is advisable to take people's pronouns at face value. This is not what we came here to debate, and it's not up for debate in this community as far as I know. This is not a moving part. We suggested five bullet-pointed changes to a single property. The rest is supporting information. Your comments about neopronouns make it difficult for me to think you are engaging with this proposal in good faith. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree with the whole aspect about trolling and disrupting. Wikidata is a database that still takes references from journalism/academia. I assume we will be adding neopronouns that have been recorded in such capacity, and not anything bad faith coming out of the "My pronouns are your/mom" type disruptive usage. Anything sincere and well-recorded does deserve to be on Wikidata. Egezort (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 Support per nomination. I've also updated the wording above to reflect the broad support that has previously been discussed with the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies)
 Strong support As AdamSeattle says above, sex and gender should not be linked to or inferred from pronouns. I support this project and am happy to help implement. --Emwille (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright folks, I'm becoming a bit concerned about the appearance of consensus here, while we're still at the level of an informal discussion/proposal.
It has come to light that several of the editors commenting here are personally affiliated with the University of Washington, and/or Crystal Yragui (@Clements.UWLib).
While these affiliations and coordination may be perfectly permissible under Wikidata policies and guidelines, it would be helpful if all editors would clearly and plainly state their affiliations, and any conflicts of interest which may arise from them.
It would not be good to establish a false consensus on the basis of support by a network of interrelated editors, while discounting the opinions of disinterested and editors who are independent and unaffiliated with UW and one another.
Yragui has already informed me that the comments which they modified belong to editors who they know personally. If y'all are so personally involved that you're putting words in one another's mouths, then you're too close to express separate opinions on any such topic. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I strongly reject the bias accusation implied in your comment. I'm not affiliated with UW at all & I've personally taught over 300 students how to use Wikidata at another institution entirely. @Clements.UWLib's proposal is sensible and would correct obviously incorrect data. Brimwats (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 Strong support I think this is really important, and the proposed changes look good to me. I'm especially supportive of providing references to support both gender and pronouns, as others have said one does not neccessarily imply the other, either in contmeporary society, or with increasing understanding of how historical figures configured their genders. A more nuanced model, which this provides, is neccessary to better represent humanity Lajmmoore (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 Strong oppose
on formal grounds (needs more careful and more multilingual consideration than it can be given in the (exclusively-English-language!) Project Chat; needlessly ties together at most tangentially related changes),
on methodological/pragmatic grounds (lacks discussion of how sources state pronouns (e.g., what does “they/xe” mean?); of the needs of query authors, data re-users, WP-infobox-template authors, etc.), and
on data-modeling/semantic grounds (supposed rationale for proposed data-type change has already been refuted multiple times; fails to take into account modeling of pronouns in languages other than English; and there may well be reasons to state a relationship between personal pronoun (P6553) and sex or gender (P21) of some sort (to be discussed) rather than removing it altogether).
Please break up this proposal into separate issues so far as they can usefully be discussed separately (e.g., (a) how to model a pronoun, (b) statements relating personal pronoun (P6553) to other sex-or-gender-related/-correlated properties, (c) data cleanup (which, incidentally, I  Conditional support), (d) …) and initiate a multilingual discussion of these issues—put to use the non-English language competencies among WikiProject Personal Pronouns participants and try to recruit additional non-English (native) speakers. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC); amended 19:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Formally, we have "Requests for comment" for proposals like this. Making such a long proposal on the project chat is bad given archiving. Changing a datatype as proposed is not something that's possible in the Wikidata UI. While we have done String->External ID conversions before, those are easier given that both are essentially strings. It would need some manual editing of the database done by WMDE which is against previous WMDE policy. We make promises about data stability and switching datatypes in this way violates them. If there's a desire to change the datatype, proposing a new property with the item datatype and deleting the one with the lexeme datatype would be the straightforward way to go.
While I agree that adding values based on the heuristics is undesirable, I don't think simply deleting all existing values is a straightforward way to solve the problem on a permanent basis. Adding citation-needed constraint (Q54554025) and then deleting values that are based on heuristics and not citations seems to me like a better solution.
It's unclear to me what the proposal even means with "relationship with sex or gender (P21)". related property (P1659) does seem fitting to me. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that changing the datatype of the existing property is not going to happen. I’m not sure if changing the content of existing revisions in the database is merely extremely difficult or completely impossible, but it’s certainly not feasible at the scale that would be needed for this proposal (changing heaven knows how many historical revisions of thousands of items). If the proposal is otherwise sound, the correct way to effectively “change the datatype” is to create a new replacement property, migrate all the data to it using normal edits, and then eventually deleting the old property once it’s no longer used, as Christian said. Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 Support Big support for the goal of decoupling pronouns from sex and gender (P21) in heuristics. We already have best practices for racial and ethnic group data (see P172) that reject an editor's inference as insufficient proof of ethnic identity, and I don't see why we shouldn't model this standard of proof with gender properties. Marcae16 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I'm not sure why there has been a reluctance here to create an RFC; perhaps it's in the works. I would note that "changes to a single property" are indeed a frequent reason for RFC's, when that property is widely used or has other implications. Current open RFC's include at least five that are primarily concerned with just 1-3 properties (either existing or proposed). ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ArthurPSmith! An RFC will be in the works soon, since many have called for one and we've got a lot to talk about. We're just taking a beat to read the feedback we've gotten and pivot. We took a lot of time and care putting this proposal together, and re-working it into a new RFC is taking a minute too. It will take into account the concerns folks have expressed about data modeling, some of which may change our approach. When an RFC is created I will make sure we link to it from here and from the property discussion page.
Is there a policy/policies surrounding RFCs and changes to existing properties we should be aware of at this point? There seems to be some knowledge about the "way things are done" that we have not been privy to, and I'd love to be able to constructively discuss possible changes and ways forward while respecting community norms and expectations. When we posted this proposal to the project chat, we were sure that this was "the way". I've been editing in Wikidata for a few years now but I don't have any experience with this sort of decisionmaking/debate in Wikidata outside of discussing new property proposals others have made. Thank you for answering questions and providing guidance, both here and on the admin noticeboard. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in again, since there's been a dearth of comments or replies to the concerns I raised upthread about personal affiliations and consensus.
You keep saying "we" as if you're running a shared account, or more than one account, or you represent more than one person when you post from your account. While that's not prohibited at Wikidata, it'd be helpful for you to disclose the identity of "we".
Following on from that, it's apparent that other commenters/supporters in this thread are directly affiliated with you, or collaborating with you in a way that's not apparent to all of us. So when people come on here to support your ideas, these are not independently-formed opinions, and that's a problematic way to represent consensus, IMHO, I don't know about other Wikidata editors, but personally, I'd prefer to know who's been canvassed, who's connected, and who's truly independent and offering an unbiased opinion.
So going forward I hope that an RFC can be conducted in a transparent and just manner. It's also important to really break it down and simplify it into components that we can all easily digest and consider, rather than this monolithic thing. It seems that many people who came here to support you wholeheartedly didn't even notice or heed expert comments that components of the proposal were unworkable/technically impossible from the outset. Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean WikiProject Personal Pronouns, which was openly stated in the introduction as the source of this proposal. I'm openly listed on that page as a participant in the project. When I say "we" here, I mean the participants in that project, and I wasn't speaking for anyone else who expressed support outside of that WikiProject which collectively raised this proposal. I'm one person running a single account trying to improve Wikidata in good faith. Your tone reads as hostile, and I am concerned that it may drive away people with relevant expertise on this subject matter who may want to contribute to a RFC once we've had some time to breathe and put one together. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I see that your introduction was quite clear about the Wikiproject representation.
I was honestly confused by the situation. Your username contains "Clements" but you seem to be named "Crystal" so I wasn't sure whose account it was. You're also from the University of Washington Libraries and so I sort of logically assumed that "we" referred to all UWLib Wikidata editors, is that crazy? This discussion is not on the Wikiproject page but a public noticeboard. It surprises me that a representative should be chosen by a WP to represent them and speak on their behalf; nobody would dare take this authority on enwiki. WikiProjects are egalitarian and cooperative places to establish consensus and work out disputes, and this is the first time I've seen one with a leader and representative who speaks and makes decisions on their behalf. Would I be permitted to join such a project and offer my own opinions?
And then you went around changing other editors' comments. That is strange behavior, if you ask me, and I'm sorry if I came up hostile at that point, but I honestly did not know what to think; as a longtime editor of other projects, a lot of this behavior would've been unacceptable and grounds for suspicion and blocking.
I know Wikidata works a lot differently and so I was just trying to sort out the truth of your account status, your group affiliation with the "we" statements, and your relationships with other commenters who appeared to be totally independently sharing their opinions, until you added "{{Strong support}}" on their behalf.
I'm sorry to cause offense here, but honestly, it was a bit of a dumpster fire already, being out-of-process and technically infeasible, and we still have "strong supporters" of an impossible proposal, so can we please shut this down, reset and start off on better footing please? Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear to others: I'm not a representative or a leader of WikiProject Personal Pronouns, I've just been fielding questions and responding to feedback, which anyone else can also do. @Elizium23, nobody in the WikiProject makes unilateral decisions and I strongly resent your accusation that I am doing so just because I've posted a few updates and responses to questions here. My username reflects a name change which is frankly none of your business. Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that this has been a "dumpster fire". Most people have lodged valid criticisms without questioning editors motivations or trying to sleuth out who they are and who they may or may not be affiliated with. WikiProject Personal Pronouns is a collective of editors who have varying affiliations and cross affiliations with other WikiProjects. Affiliations with people who have a shared interest (Wikidata) doesn't mean individual people cannot come to and express there own opinions. Certainly, people can support the spirit of a project or idea, but not have clear agreement on how and if it can be accomplished. I think your accusations were unfounded and uncalled for. It serves as a means to deter current and future editors from trying to contribute more to Wikidata and its governance structure. Rodriguez.UW (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This, and your abovethread comments are unduly hostile and aggressive and not in the cooperative and kind nature of Wikidata. I'm really disappointed to see this level of rudeness and suspicion-throwing towards fellow editors. Brimwats (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
So am I. But who in hell are you? Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elizium23: Presumably @Brimwats is just another Wikidata contributor. There is no requirement for hierarchy before suggesting that someone's tone and approach is coming across as pretty hostile and aggressive — whether that is intended or not.
Can I suggest you take another look at the Universal Code of Conduct terms around Mutual respect, around Civility and around Assuming Good Faith. This isn't an argument over whether a thing should be done, it's a discussion on how best to address something that a group of users have identified as being problematic.
Once you're in a more collaborative mood, perhaps you could rephrase your outstanding concerns so that they can be more easily responded to. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elizium23I have to agree with @OwenBlacker even outside of the context of the proposal. There is no need for language to be escalated and questioning of motives or positions of other editors. We should all wish to keep things collegial. We all have an interest in Wikidata and the assumption of good faith is a fundamental principle in maintaining community here. Rodriguez.UW (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Why are you accusing me of being rude if you're the one swearing at me? I fail to see any warrant or need for that level of hostility. Furthermore, what is your question supposed to mean?? Are you asking me who I am on an epistemic level? I'm probably Q5 then (if you need a link: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5)... or maybe you mean here, in this context? Then I'm probably Q28859215 or Q37226? Do you mean personally? Q109757168 would work--how about you? Brimwats (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
 Strong oppose Wrong venue for this proposal. Needs to be broken up into one or more RFCs and a property for creation proposal. William Graham (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am a wikidata virgin (male) , and I need help to post some data there.

I created a complete bibliography list of works by a recent Nobel prize winner John B. Goodenough, and I posted my list to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough. Another editor suggested, that I move this list to wikidata, and provide a link to wikipedia. Since I have never used wikidata ( and do not plan to use it much to justify the learning time), I am asking someone to place my list to wikidata. Walter Tau (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Walter Tau, Wikidata objects related to d:Q906529 can be found for example at:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
If you want to generate static wiki pages from a collection of wikidata items, you could also use Wikidata:Listeria.--5628785a (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a property of the "last public appearance in a photograph" of a person, such as actor, politician or other persons?

I notice this Property:P12878 = last appearance (P12878) "last work featuring a fictional character or item"

Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Journal Issues

Would like to create item for journal issue and post table of contents I.e. list of titles of all articles with author details for all the articles. Please post any help page or link document. Thanks.

Vjsuseela Vjsuseela (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vjsuseela The Wikidata:WikiCite group/project and Wikidata talk:WikiCite should be able to help you. They're the project that focuses on this scholarly and scientific journals. William Graham (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflation

The IP 83.28.217.24 seems to add whatever is connected with a name. I've just marked Wendy McMahon (Q121437661): American television executive mixed with a lecturer in American Studies as conflation. (I haven't corrected all errors yet.) Now I've checked Randy Petersen (Q7292360): American publisher, the founder of FlyerTalk, and the conflation seems even worse. IdRef for an educator, VIAF 10083800 with 100 Bible verses that changed the world etc. Can someone have a look? --Kolja21 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the recent additions. The links are at https://snaccooperative.org/ark:/99166/w6sp2nn0 but they seem to be at least three different people. Peter James (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks. Conflation solved. Kolja21 (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Discographies

Are entries like Lord Lovat (Q1869887) Bennie Moten's Kansas City Orchestra discography (Q96159078) and Bennie Moten's Kansas City Orchestra's albums in chronological order (Q96159307) suppose to link to an actual discography that we store somewhere internally or stored externally? Or do we create discography entries for every musical group? RAN (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I can’t understand the question. Did you link the right item? --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm generally of the opinion that items of type Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) and subclasses, including Wikimedia artist discography (Q104635718), shouldn't have any statements of has part(s) (P527) when those relationships can already be determined with data that is already exists in the constituent member items. For discographies we already have the ability to search items that have the musician/group in the performer/artist statements. For the same reasons I don't think it would make sense to add a part of (P361) statement to a song/recording/album linking to a discography item.
But that is just my opinion and I'm sure that the folks at Wikidata:WikiProject Music have thought more about it and might even have some good showcase/exemplar items. Celine Dion discography (Q50638) was linked on their project page and it looks like a reasonable approach/how I would expect it. William Graham (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry and to circle back to the question asked, for those same reasons (can already determine discography by inference from existing items) I don't think it is needed to create a discography for every musician/group unless there is a discography page on a Wikimedia project. William Graham (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Copypasta error? Looking like Q1869887 points to the "noble title" mentioned in the post above, not really relevant to discographies (unless I'm missing some context). Moebeus (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry! My fault. I corrected it above. I do not see a point having them, we can link to Discogs or DAHR from the discography link but we already point to it from the main Wikidata entry. They provide nothing useful unless there was a separate Wikimedia entry. --RAN (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Simplifying it a little I would say the reason we have them is threefold:
    1. Consistency. A large amount of discografies exist on WP and therefore on WD, so a large amount of recording artists will have these statements anyways, whether we like them or not. Discography articles on Wikipedia tend to get added and deleted, split and merged, all the time, so "let's just make them all conform to the norm and move on to more pressing things".
    2. Structure. Among other things they provide a way to link to Wikipedia Categories, which we don't like cluttering up our main items more than necessary.
    3. Compromise. A common pattern on Wikipedias are "Infoboxes", and these infoboxes often have a "<previous record><this record><next record>" navigation element. These keep getting added to Wikidata in the form of follows and followed by statements in the hundreds of thousands. This is to be avoided, so a practise has developed where discografies are used to model the infox chronologies, extending an olive branch to our sometimes very insistent editor collegues on the Wikipedia side of the fence, while pruning excessive main statements. Several Wikipedias who are not English Wikipedia actually use Wikidata to automate parts of these Infoxes, so we're making an effort to not just yank stuff out, but provide a way to transition.
    None of these are very good arguments from a purist standpoint, personally I would say it's mostly fair if we're trying to be pragmatic about it. However, as is frequently pointed out to me, this is just like, my opinion, man, and not the official position of Wikidata:WikiProject_Music.
    Is there a smarter way to go about it? Discographical chronologies are not as straightforward as one might intially think, but I would still say 100% yes there is. It would require copious amounts of both elbow grease and consensus, two of the most sought after rare earth minerals on planet Wikidata, but it could for sure be done. Moebeus (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How to express that one source qualifies a date as latest possible

For Carrer dels Domenics, 26 (Q127697124), one of my sources points out that the 1936 date given by several official sources (including [10], which postdates that first source) is really a latest possible date: "Consulté también el catastro (es que una es así de cabezota) y la fecha que consta es 1936 y está declarada como vivienda. Sin embargo, teniendo en cuenta que la urbanización esta zona de la calle Quatre Camis es de esa fecha, no sé hasta qué punto la casa no será anterior," not easily translated but basically saying that it first shows up on property records in 1936, but there is no guarantee that it might not be older. Any reasonable way to express that qualification? - Jmabel (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would further mention that the architect (Eusebi Climent Viñola) died in 1917, so it would be odd for a building of his to be completed decades after his death, so I'm pretty skeptical about the one source we have, even if it is an official government source. - Jmabel (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, I'm not sure which of latest start date (P8555), latest date (P1326), or ‎latest end date (P12506) would apply in this specific case.
If you want to say the latest date that Carrer dels Domenics, 26 (Q127697124) starting being a building, I'd do
Carrer dels Domenics, 26 (Q127697124)instance of (P31)building (Q41176)latest start date (P8555)1936 Lovelano (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

EU Commission - European electronic health record exchange format - (EEHRxF)

I'm coming in via the EU Health Union, Priority 8: eHealthRecord, Patient Data Vault, eHealthKiosks, Smartwatches & sensors, storing and sharing health data. Anybody working on this or any advise/vision on this? Most EU member states have implemented the EEHR. Implementation of the EEHRxF - so that eHealthKiosks, Smartwatches & sensors directly write data into citizen's eHealthRecords starts november 2024 and compliance to be implemented by 2027 - from then on there will be penalties. It is not normal that +60.000 Power people in the Brussels power bubble and politicians everywhere in Europe have their smartphones register how many hours they slept, if they slept well, if they are struggling with fatigue, etc - idem their family members and that those data are via their iPhones somewhere with the secret services of the USA, Huawei - with their Chinese counterparts smiling because they know exactly how fatigues you are and that you will be inclined to give in into a negotiation if they just strech it, Samsung - no idea where that data ends up, etc. More: https://xpandh-project.iscte-iul.pt Looking forward, SvenAERTS (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The connection between this and Wikidata completely escapes me. - Jmabel (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Statements for suspended then cancelled event

Which statements to add for suspended then cancelled event? Eurohunter (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else, there's
⟨ FOO ⟩ significant event (P793) View with SQID ⟨ suspended (Q115754746)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
and
⟨ FOO ⟩ significant event (P793) View with SQID ⟨ cancelled (Q30108381)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
with dates as qualifiers. (This assumes that FOO is an item for the event.) - Jmabel (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Vote now to fill vacancies of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through August 10, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Office_holder or has_part

Noble titles appear to be split between two ways of modelling. See: Lord Lovat (Q1869887) where I include both. Which model should we harmonize on? RAN (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

has part(s) (P527) does not seem like the right way to model this to me. The people holding these titles aren't parts of the title. While officeholder (P1308) seems to have been created for exactly this purpose (though such reverse properties probably wouldn't be created anymore nowadays). --2A02:810B:580:11D4:7CF0:945:A5B3:95EE 02:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

RE: Monument in Chile is whole town that we have an item of

reviving earlier discussion, see Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2024/07 #Monument in Chile is whole town that we have an item of

Dear @Ymblanter, thank you for your earlier reply! Didn't see in time, unfortunately. In your answer, you stated that merging these two entries would result in a bunch of constraint violations. What would be the problem of adding the statements heritage designation (P1435) and Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) from San Pedro de Atacama (Q42897945) (the monument) to San Pedro de Atacama (Q187893) (the city item)? The latter does have a statement of heritage status already so I am confused as to whether it's shouldn't be possible to have this information on that item.
(I might add that I used the term 'merging' but meant more or less combining all the information of the two items into one, not necessarily done by using the Merge function.)

Would it pose a problem that the Wiki loves Monuments database gives slightly different coordinates than the city item? (I couldn't find where those came from, though, as the original decrees listed on the Chilenian heritage site (here) don't give any.) Thank you for/anyone else more firm in Wikidata structure for enlightening me :) Fallen Sheep (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No, coordinates we can changes, this is not a problem, but I am sure that an object which has a P31 = city should not be able to have many properties which a monument has. Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I understand where you're coming from. However, the item is not really a 'monument' but rather... a heritage site? (Maybe I used the wrong language in my description before.) And the designation is giving to the whole city of San Pedro de Atacama. Hence why I compared it to Giza pyramid complex (Q12508) which also has the property heritage designation (P1435). Hence my confusion why it couldn't be possible for this item too.
Really the only properties/statements the monument item has that the city item doesn't are heritage designation (P1435) and Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186). I think both would add relevant information to the city item. Fallen Sheep (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

B/W for the games of a videogame console

How to model if the games of a videogame console has B/W or color images displayed? The console case usually has colors but the games for some consoles can be only in B/W as for Q117211808. There are Q838368 (B/W) or Q22006653 (color) to describe the color (Property:P462) of a film but I don't know if it's appropriate to model not the colors of the console itself, but the colors of relative games, of the images displayed. Arosio Stefano (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There is an item for color screen (Q115919122) that has a couple uses describing Nokia 3510i (Q2020407) (cell phone) and Casio 9850 series (Q1047650) (series of graphing calculators) using has characteristic (P1552). I think creating a monochrome screen item (with aliases monochromatic screen and black and white screen) as an inverse would make a lot of sense. But I defer to those with more experience modeling electronic device features. William Graham (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Q7929727

Hi. Looking at this entry, it appears to conflate information about two different people. Per my comment on that talk page "The Chinese wiki article is for someone else (born 1978/79), with the English article about the Hungarian sprinter born 1973. The Arabic wiki article conflates the two people." Please can someone help to split the Chinese page here to another one? I've removed the death information here, as the bulk of the record relates to the Hungarian sprinter who is as far as I can tell still alive. Thank you HelplessChild (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I moved the Chinese sitelink to a new item, Viktor Kovács (Q127998634). I couldn't find a date of birth but according to https://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/red-bull-wingsuit-pilot-dies-when-parachute-fails he was 40 (born 1972 or 1973; the sprinter was 39 at the time). https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/118476818/victor-kov%C3%A1cs uses the date of birth of the sprinter, but there is no source and not much information so it is possible Wikipedia was used and they were assumed to be the same person. Peter James (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Qualifier value violations?

I fail to understand what the issue is with these Qualifier value violations. What is expected for the number of members of an organization? Judging from the fairly large number of violations something is going really wrong here, or the expected entries are counter intuitive or... I cannot tell. Anyhow, any insight on this is welcome. Cheers [[kgh]] (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, nobody with a clue? [[kgh]] (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
That constraint is an unofficial and undocumented one and I don't know what it's supposed to mean on that property (there's already allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) for which qualifiers are allowed). Since it doesn't seem to be doing anything useful, I've removed it. - Nikki (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
That explains things. Thank you for your feedback and support. Cheers --[[kgh]] (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #638

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-07-29. Please help Translate.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • GergesBot 2 - Task/s: Edit label when order is added in ar:ويكيبيديا:طلبات نقل عبر البوت (Transfer requests by Bot).
    • UmisBot - Task/s: This bot will add string representations of units of measurement to units of measurement Wikidata pages.

Events

  • Upcoming:
    • Wikidata Days Bologna 2024, Italian language conference dedicated to Wikidata for libraries and research, taking place in the frame of Wikidata’s 12th birthday, on November 8-9 in Bologna, Italy.
    • Wikimania starts on August 7. Here is a list of sessions focused around Wikidata, or have *some* connection to Wikidata: 2024:Program/Wikidata. If something is missing, feel free to add to it, including any Wikidata meetups you may be hosting.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • User:Nikki/ShowIDs.js - This user script adds entity IDs in brackets after links.
  • Common values, yet another Observable notebook. This one looks at common values between two Wikidata item pages.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • IP masking: The feature was rolled out to test wikis and we fixed a few issues uncovered by this.
  • EntitySchemas: We are working to make it possible to search for the EntitySchema by its label and aliases when making a new statement linking to an EntitySchema (phab:T362005)
  • Integration in other Wikimedia projects: We are working on moving the Wikidata Item link from the tools section of the sidebar (phab:T66315)
  • REST API:
    • We changed the data-type field to data_type in JSON responses (phab:T368130)
    • We are continuing the work on improving error handling and messages

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

Edit request

Hello, I wanted to add an entry to maize (Q11575), but it seems to be protected. Can any of you add مکابؤج (link) from Gilaki wikipedia (glk) to maize (Q11575)?Mehrshad Mehdi pour (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Wolverène (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Mehrshad Mehdi pour (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2024/07&oldid=2223602622"