Wikidata:Project chat

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata.

Requests for deletions can be made here.
Merging instructions can be found here.

IRC channel: #wikidata ^connect

Start a new discussion

Edit

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2017/10.

Project chat	Administrators' noticeboard	Development team	Bureaucrats' noticeboard	Translators' noticeboard	Requests for permissions	Requests for deletions
Property proposal	Properties for deletion	Requests for comment	Partnerships and imports	Interwiki conflicts	Request a query	Bot requests

1 Difference between hamlet and village
- 1.1 OGL licence for data
2 Page to outline the benefits and challenges of using facts from Wikidata on other Wikimedia projects
3 Best practices for using Wikidata Properties on a separate site?
4 Survey of Scottish Witchcraft Database
5 Protecting country names
6 wikilinks on wikisource editions through wikidata
7 Subtypes of geothermal power stations
8 Add a BikeTouring Wiki to Wikidata
9 language property
10 Need help with a SPARQL query
11 Google doodles
12 About number of deaths (P1120)
13 Data from Wikivoyage
14 Is a Wikiproject a valid catalog?
15 Instances of humans made additional instance of something else
16 member of (P463) and parliamentary terms, which way to fix?
17 Is there a page on Wikidata that shows how other Wikimedia projects are using Wikidata?
18 Any showcase items or examples for military figures
19 Editing an existing article
20 Do we need encephalon (Q75865) and brain (Q1073)
21 Recent changes
22 References to wmflabs?
23 American Civil War
24 manager/director (P1037)
25 Top 10% economists and Top 10% female economists now in Wikidata
26 Problems with properties
27 Update on creating a list of commonly used proccesses to format data to import it into Wikidata
28 Birthday logo update
29 Celebrity userpages
30 honorary degree: is it an award or an academic degree
31 'Stated as' vs. 'author name string'
32 Navigation tool (maps, etc.) for navigation by navigator
33 Paired and unpaired organs
34 Structured Commons focus group - please consider joining!
35 Idea of a query example
36 OTRS-permit
37 Generational suffix
38 new filters for reCh tool
39 VIAF ID sync
40 Why don't the Wikidata Tours work?
41 Number of descendants
42 operator (P137) for embassies
43 Importing GNIS data
44 Can I use wikidata to link to wikipedia via ICD10 code?
45 UEFA ranking
46 Notability of Wikivoyage listings
47 pywikibot - setting rank to "preferred" using setRank() or changeRank()
48 German Business Registry, Handelsregister
49 WikiProject Gendergap
50 WordPress plugin to associate tags with Wikidata IDs: opinions sought
51 Q24702432
52 Wikidata weekly summary #282
53 Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
- 53.1 Links
54 ID property issue because of URL structure
55 Words having multiple pages in enwiki
56 Technical issue
57 Correct property for a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK

Difference between hamlet and village[edit]

I'm looking for guidance on when to use the term "hamlet" and when to use "village" when giving an "instance of/P31" to a small human settlement. Apologies if this is obvious or guidance is listed somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything definitive. The term village is widely used in preference to hamlet, in many cases for settlements that are very small. In addition can either of those terms be used as a "located in the administrative territorial entity/P131" for associating a building/monument etc to a location. I ask because I associated a listed building with a small village, using "located in the administrative territorial entity" only to have to removed by another user. Perhaps there is a more appropriate way of associating a building to a location that is more specific? Many thanks. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerryL2017 (talk • contribs) at 10:52, 16 September 2017‎ (UTC).

@JerryL2017:. Good question.

Taking the point about located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) first, technically P131 should point to an entity that has some administrative status -- so for example in England a civil parish. One advantage of limiting P131 in this way is that we can quality control items at the civil parish level, making sure that they all have Commons categories, official identifiers, etc; and P131 statements set in turn, to make it possible to hierarchically extract all the items in that tree eg in a particular county. The 'administrative' territory is also the level that will have some kind of body with some kind of formal responsibility (or at least consultation input) over the item, so this is a useful thing to identify.

For more precise relations to things that are not administrative units, the property location (P276) is recommended instead -- this could be appropriate for smaller villages. In addition the property located at street address (P969) is available for the full postal address, given separately.

As to the village/hamlet question, I've been recently coming across this a bit myself. I've going through the last few civil parishes not yet identified as such (113 currently to go), merging any doppelgangers, giving them a instance of (P31) = civil parish (Q1115575), making sure that they have a GSS code (2011) (P836), Commons category (P373), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) etc.

Part of what I've been doing is asking myself should they also be tagged instance of (P31) = village (Q532), or perhaps instance of (P31) = hamlet (Q5084), or instance of (P31) = human settlement (Q486972) (which is sometimes what has been imported from Dutch or Polish wikis).

I don't have a bright-line answer for this. I think there are probably a lot of things at present that aren't tagged village (Q532) that maybe should be; also some that are that probably shouldn't be. For myself, if en-wiki or Commons say that it is a "village and civil parish" then I tend to go with that; also if Googling for "<place-name> village" produces some sensible-looking hits using the word village with the place-name (as oppose to pages that are just auto-generated search engine fodder), then I go with that. Otherwise if there are coordinates I click through to an Ordnance Survey map, and see whether it looks like it has many houses.

Ultimately what we need is a reliable external source on how to classify it. I am not sure whether (for the UK) the census or the ONS has this. I think the Ordnance Survey identifies hamlets in its database (sometimes linked through a TOID (P3120) property, with an ID-number starting with "4"); but I am not sure that we can legally harvest and re-use that on a systematic basis.

At some point this is something that does need to be checked over systematically. But for the moment I've just been doing my best on an item-by-item basis. Jheald (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata does not seem to have properties to support the distinction between an incorporated village, found in the northeastern United States, and a "village" in ordinary speech, which might or might not have any government organization associated with it. In the northeastern US people often call a certain area, such as Hydeville, Vermont (Q30624489), a "village" in casual conversation, but a "hamlet" when discussing government matters such as elections, because Hydeville has no government of any kind associated with it. In that area, several states issue charters to incorporated villages which do exercise government functions. I can say that because I'm a member of the Board of Civil Authority of the containing town, Castleton (Q1049714). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A good approach here is to create specific item types for local concepts like this - eg village municipality of Quebec (Q27676420) for a specific class of village in Quebec, or city of the United States (Q1093829) for US "cities" (in the administrative sense, not the common one), with liberal uses of subclasses to tie everything together. Of course, creating enough items for all the admin types can get very time-consuming... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for some interesting input. On the village/hamlet question, given that there doesn't seem to be a globally applicable definition of the difference and no systematic way of reviewing those that are in the system (my COUNT of village shows 293000+ instances of village (Q532)) it seems an acceptable approach is to classify any settlement smaller than a town as a village, even if it may only have a few houses. But I'm happy to be corrected here? Thanks again. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerryL2017 (talk • contribs) at 08:10, 17 September 2017‎‎ (UTC).

There is an old definition of hamlet in the UK that it is any small settlement that does not have a church, or more broadly, any services, such as a shop, public house, or post office. Typically in the UK, when ecclesiastical parishes were effectively the lowest level of administration, this would mean that the settlement in a parish that had the church would be the village, and all other settlements would be regarded as hamlets, regardless of size of population etc. However, this definition doesn't really take into account changes in demographics and the move towards the use of civil parishes as the administrative area, most of which were based on the older ecclesiastical parishes, but sometimes later merged into bigger civil parishes.

As JHeald stated the Ordnance Survey (OS) classifies any Named Place (TOID (P3120) property, with an ID-number starting with "4") with a field called "Populated Places" which can be city, town, village, or hamlet. Unfortunately, the links to the ontology of the data don't work so we can't see what their definition of the terms are... There do seem to be contradictions with the older definition. For example, Lansallos (Q1762721), a village and former civil parish, is identified by the OS a hamlet. You could argue that it should be marked as a village until some some unknown point in the past, when it came to be regarded as a hamlet...

Interesting point from Jheald on using OS data. Most of it is from OS OpenData which is free to use, but you should should acknowledge the source with "Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (year)". Does this mean that every statement of coordinates, area, adjoining areas etc that we use from the OS should be acknowledged? If so, how? Robevans123 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

OGL licence for data[edit]

Even though the data is there in the OS Open Data website, and there are several civil parishes we don't have co-ordinates for, I have been cautious about extracting it from the OS, because I am not sure what the answers are to the above licensing questions. (So eg instead I have averaged coordinates for items located in the parish, or looked the place up on Streetmap.co.uk which has quite a nice facility for reading off GPS coordinates for a point on the map). But I think these are questions we need to think about, and perhaps sooner than later. In particular:

Is the Open Government License viral -- if somebody in turn reuses the coordinates from Wikidata, would they too need to say that their report "Contains OS Data" ? Reading the OGL the question doesn't seem to be spelt out. But if there was such a passed-on requirement, that would be not be compatible with our headline CC0 licence for Wikidata.
If we can use OGL data, how do we implement the credit line. Do we need a new item-valued property "credit line for data" ? Since they are specifically requiring a credit line, simply referencing the source of the data is presumably not enough.
If we do use such data, does Wikidata need to have a project-level page with the credit line on it (and any other similar credit lines), presumably prominently linked to, perhaps also giving a count of the number of statements with the credit line & a query to list them.
Even if that were legally possible (ie OGL not viral), is it something we would actually want to do? Jheald (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Jdforrester (WMF): to see whether he has any input on this. Jheald (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jheald: Hey there. I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask with regard to this (I'm not a lawyer after all), and this is mostly asking me in my personal capacity as something I used to work on before I was at the Wikimedia Foundation, but my initial thought would be that yes, the OGL requirement to "acknowledge the source of the Information in your product or application by including or linking to any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence"^{[OGL 1]} would be incompatible with CC0, sorry. You should seek better-informed advice than mine, however.

↑ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Jdforrester (WMF): for taking the time out to give your thought on this.

It is certainly clear that we would need to provide that attribution statement, per the license. But it's not quite so clear (at least not to me), whether any obligation is placed on us to similarly require such attribution by anyone who obtains and uses that information point from us. Maybe I'm missing something, but the licence doesn't seem to impose that obligation. And if there was no downstream obligation on people reusing the data from us, then it would be compatible with CC0. On the other hand, I've felt sufficient discomfort about the question that I haven't used any OS data so far (apart from providing links to them, which I think is fair game).

But you're probably right, we probably need to ask the lawyers. And maybe whoever owns the OGL, if we can put together a case for why requiring induced attribution on further downstream use would be counterproductive. Jheald (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've spent some time reading about the OGL and am know pretty sure that:

there is no requirement to impose the license conditions on re-users of the data - so using the data within Wikidata is compatible with our own CC0 license.
there is a requirement to acknowledge the source - this can be done on a single page or file somewhere reasonably accessible. If multiple OGL data sets are used it is possible to merge the acknowledgements into one statement, such as "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0".

There are some further restrictions (no personal data, government logos, military insignia, individual's copyright etc..), and also you must not make any claim that you are endorsed by the government or that your data is current when it is not etc.

I think the rationale behind the OGL is basically that the OGL data is out there for anyone to use with as little restriction as possible, but if you use it, people should be able to see when and where you got it from and ideally be able to access the original, or up-to-date, information easily.

As an aside, I noticed that Ordnance Survey (Q548721) back in 2011, the OS OpenData Licensing statement included a re-attribution condition, even though they said the license incorporated the new Open Government Licence. But now their licensing information makes no mention of any re-attribution needing to be imposed.

So yes, I agree with Jheald that Wikidata does need "a project-level page with the credit line on it (and any other similar credit lines)". I think a page labelled "Credits" at the same level as the links to "Privacy policy", "About Wikidata", "Disclaimers" etc are shown at the bottom of the main page.

The OGL also suggests that it is good practice "maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another file or location, if it is not practical to include these prominently within your product". I think this would be a good idea anyway to record details of databases that have been incorporated into Wikidata. For example, we have a lot of data on scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the UK that was imported from English Heritage (Q936287)/Historic England (Q19604421) (there was an operational split in 2015) in 2014 and expanded in 2016. Since their database is regularly updated it is useful to know what was added and when, so we can occasionally look for updates.

Finally, I read somewhere that although a database may be copyright, the individual items in the database are not. SO I think it is possible to occasionally add civil parish coordinates from Ordnance Survey (Q548721) and such use would be regarded as insubstantial. If someone took a copy of the OS OpenData data set and extracted all the civil parish coordinates and added them to Wikidata we would certainly need to include an OGL acknowldegement.

Disclaimer - I am not a legal expert - all the above is based on reading of available information. We really should get legal advice from the Foundation on this matter...Robevans123 (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's a forum post about coordinate conversion. It isn't clear from the discussion in this sub-thread what kind of coordinates are being obtained from OS Open Data. Wikidata uses WGS84. I don't know about the UK, but in the US, copyright does not apply to facts, it applies to how facts are expressed. If the way the facts were expressed were different, because they are in a different coordinate system, would that avoid the OS copyright? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

According to the EU en:Database Directive, "a person infringes a database right if they extract or re-utilise all or a substantial part of the contents of a protected database without the consent of the owner." The key word here is probably "re-utilise". For what it's worth, the UK Ordnance Survey provides latitudes and longitudes based on WGS84 as well as UK national grid coordinates based on OSGB 36. Extraction of the OSGB coordinates in the first place would count as extraction. Even though there seems to be no explicit use of the phrase "derivative work" in the directive, conversion to WGS84 would I fear nevertheless count as "re-utilisation".

And -- contra what I wrote above -- I think the phrase "re-utilisation" probably does sink us on the third-party re-use question as well. Yes, there seem to be no explicit licensing conditions the OGL tells us we have to impose on re-users of our data. But if those re-users are re-utilising information ultimately derived from an OGL database, I think they too are caught by the "re-utilisation" phrase of the database directive, and therefore they too can only legitimately re-use the information if they comply with the terms of the OGL. And therefore we cannot say honestly, as CC0 would require, that the information is freely re-usable, no strings attached.

The OGL doesn't oblige us to impose downstream re-use conditions; but it does oblige us to advertise that our data contains OGL data, to make anyone reusing a substantial part of it reasonably aware that there was database right claimed in some of the data, and they would need to comply with the OGL if they in turn were to reuse a substantial part of the OGL originated material.

So sadly I don't think I can legitimately import land-area information from the ONS db file for all 12,000+ entities we have GSS code (2011) (P836) for. Instead, I think we do have to follow the summary section of WMF Legal's page on database rights over at Meta, to keep "extraction and use of data" from such sources to a minimum.

But I will drop a note on the talk page there, to see if someone from there can look over this discussion and tell us whether they agree. Jheald (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, CC0 just waives the rights of the owners/contributors (the affirmers) of the work (Wikidata) to be recognised and acknowledged. But the affirmer also disclaims any responsibility for clearing rights of other persons that may apply to the Work (section 4c of the full (legal code) text of the CC0). Effectively, third party users are responsible for their own actions - if we've acknowledged that geo-spatial information in Wikidata includes information from Ordnance Survey and has been licensed under an OGL, then someone takes all of that OS data and re-uses it in a product without adding an OGL acknowledgment - that is their problem (and also would not be a good business choice since they could get guaranteed up-to-date info from the OS for free anyway). So although Wikidata is freely available, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily a "do what you want with it, no strings attached" resource.

I do believe that WMF Legal's advice to keep "extraction and use of data" is valid for databases that people want to protect, but I don't think it fully recognises that at least some UK government departments really want you to use their data! Robevans123 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I co-wrote the Wikilegal piece quoted above, and I'd be happy to help here. I understand that the question was raised whether the OGL (a license I was unfamiliar with) is viral (which I think it is not) and whether the OGL allows us to incorporate licensed data into Wikidata (which I think it does). But I need to re-think this, and it's quite late now, so maybe bug me again tomorrow :-) --Gnom (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gnom: Anymore thoughts? How should we acknowledge the data source? With a credits page? Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me, Robevans123. I think we can incorporate the data into Wikidata simply by linking to the appropriate government page under "source", and that's it. --Gnom (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gnom: Sorry to pick this up so late, I meant to get back to you on this earlier. But when eg the UK Ordnance Survey specify that under the OGL they want the specific attribution text "Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (year)", surely we would have to give them that attribution? And if so, if the statement in that attribution is true for the data, how is that compatible with saying that the data is available CC0 ? Jheald (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jheald: Good questions. I think this FAQ answers part of the questions. CC0 only gives away our (wikidatians?) rights to be recognised. We can't give away other people's rights, but we can include their data (provided that they are allowing their data to be used elsewhere) and ideally we should acknowledge them as the source and copyright holders.

The question of acknowledgement is less clear - I haven't yet found any good examples - there is nothing quite like Wikidata! Most seem to favour a simple statement as you've given above, and UK Ordnance Survey seem happy with that.

Gnom is suggesting that using "source" is sufficient. I'm not sure whether he means imported from (P143) or source website for the property (P1896), or either/or, or both. Also useful to add retrieved (P813) so people have an easily have an idea of how old the data is (better than having to trawl through the history page).

I would favour both:

having a statement on the copyright page
adding a reference to any statement for an item using imported from (P143)/source website for the property (P1896) (and/or reference URL (P854) if sourcing from a particular page)

I'm pretty sure that such a "belt and braces" approach ensures that we meet the requirements of the Open Government License, and also provides users with enough information, so they are aware that there is copyright on some of the data, and can also go and find the latest and most accurate version of the data from the original source.

Incidentally, I didn't even realise we had a copyright page until it was mentioned in a later discussion on this page. It should probably be in a slightly more prominent place. Robevans123 (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I am deeply uncomfortable about this. Even if you are correct, and extensive use of OGL data may be compatible with the letter of the CC0 licence, it seems to me to run strongly against the spirit of it, and against our purpose in warranting that the data here is CC0. To me, that carries the implication (in spirit, if it is true that it is not in letter), that to the best of our awareness there is no copyright or database right held on the data or any extensive portion of it by anyone -- just as all copyrights in Commons images are required to be released or licensed under open licences.

I would really value hearing specifically from User:Gnom why he thinks that OGL is compatible with Wikidata and CC0. Jheald (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the spirit of the license is defined in the letters of the license. Surely that is the whole point of a license. See section 1, with regard to sub item ii of the legal text.

I think there is a deep misunderstanding of what CC0 means - all we are doing is waiving our rights as contributors. Almost all of the data is derived from other sources, some in copyright (with permission or fair use), some out of copyright, some in public domain, much of it released by others using Creative Commons licenses. All we are releasing is our contributions (which is primarily how the data is structured and linked through statements and properties etc).

Take a look at the section beginning "Even though are you not making any warranties of copyright ownership...". In fact, using OGL data extensively does not seem to be any different to using data created from bots crawling through Wikipedia (using data that has been released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license). In fact, we should also include an acknowledgement of that source (and other Wikipedias) on the copyright page.

We should also acknowledge Wikimedia Commons as a source as well - the images, associated text, and the structure of the categories are all released under CC-BY-SA licenses...

We not only want to avoid Wikidata getting sued but we also don't want data reusers to get sued. Even within our own usage of the data we do publish Truthy dumps that string away information contained in qualifiers and thus also any credits that are given in those qualifiers. ChristianKl (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Actually, CC0 just waives the rights of the owners/contributors (the affirmers) of the work (Wikidata) to be recognised and acknowledged (...) then someone takes all of that OS data and re-uses it in a product without adding an OGL acknowledgment - that is their problem" - so you claim that users of Wikidata are supposed to magically guess what kind of licences are applied to given statements? How requirements for attribution and other are documented in Wikidata entries? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion - the licence in question (Open Government Licence for public sector information, version 3) says the following in the most relevant section:

You are free to:

copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
adapt the Information;
exploit the Information commercially and non-commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.

You must (where you do any of the above):

acknowledge the source of the Information in your product or application by including or linking to any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence; [...]

This means that when I want to incorporate a database licenced under this licence into Wikidata, I am free to do so under one (and only one) condition:

I must acknowledge the source of the database by linking to

the attribution provided, if any, and
if possible(!) provide a link to the licence.

Since Wikidata allows me to add links and name authorities in connection to any statement to indicate a source, I can do that and thereby fulfill the requirement of the licence.

Once I have successfully acknowledged the source of the data, I am set. Nothing else needs to be done or ever cared about. End of story.

Again, to be extra clear: This licence is not viral. This means that the fact that Wikidata is licenced under CC0 does not, and cannot, pose any problem at all. The only case in which this would pose a problem is if the licence were viral. Since the licence is, again, not viral, the CC0 attribution of Wikidata is just fine.

If the authors of this licence had wanted to create a viral licence, they could have done that. Since they haven't, the licence is not viral.

I am welcome to any comments or questions regarding this reasoning. Please also let me know if my reasoning is flawed or incomplete. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I missing something but in one side we have a site that said "use my data but provide attribution", in other side, we have Wikidata that said "use my data and do all what you want, no attribution is necessary" the result is « use wikidata for "cleaning" some type of license ». I don't think that in this manner we respect the license. --ValterVB (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: could you clarify what you mean by « use wikidata for "cleaning" some type of license »? I'm not sure what this means... Which license do you think we are not respecting - the OGL or CC0? Robevans123 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robevans123: Example: I want use some important data from site X where license say: "provide attribution", but I don't want provide attribution; I add data on Wikidata with attribution so I can use data without attibution for my work and if someone say something I can say :"Wikidata is CC0, I mustn't provide attribution". --ValterVB (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: - thanks - that's a great example and clarifies your concerns. I'll reword it slightly, and expand it, and try to explain what the copyright issues are.

Let us say that Angharad creates a database, entirely of her own making and releases it to be freely used with a CC-BY license (CC-BY licenses do not include a requirement for re-attribution - the license is not "viral").
Bronwen sees that the data may be useful to her work, and copies it into the Dilwyn Knowledge Base, which is an open CC0 resource hosted on servers run by the Eurwen Foundation.
Brownen provides attribution to Angharad's work on the Dilwyn Knowledge Base.
Brownen copies Angharad's work into her own product or research and releases it without acknowledging Angharad's work.

The result is that Bronwen is in breach of copyright of Angharad's work - it is no defence to say that she got the data from the Dilwyn Knowledge Base which is available freely under a CC0 license. A CC0 license releases data purely "as is" with no guarantee that it is complete or accurate, and more importantly, the legal text specifically says "a work made available under CC0 may be protected by copyright and related or neighboring rights" (such as the moral rights/copyright of the original author - in this case Angharad).

Angharad would be able to sue Bronwen for breach of copyright, and since Bronwen has deliberately tried to evade copyright I would expect the damages due would be very high!

The question is why Brownen doing this? Even if Bronwen was creating a commercial product, let's call it Ffion's Ultimate Normalizer (FUN), she would not have to pay anything to Angharad if she just gave Angharad the correct attribution somewhere in FUN.

Incidentally, Angharad would not be able to take action against the Dilwyn Knowledge Base or the Eurwen Foundation.

Let's say that a third developer, called Cerys, takes Angharad's work and includes it in a product. Again, Cerys is in breach of copyright of Angharad's work - yet again it is no defence to say that she got the data from the Dilwyn Knowledge Base (because the CC0 license offers no warranties, and also says that it "disclaims responsibility for clearing rights of other persons that may apply to the work"). Cerys is required to perform due diligence on the source of the data she is using if she's using the data in a published work or product.

Hope all this helps. Robevans123 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your eplanation but I don't think that CC0 is like you mean it. The person who said "is CC0" implicitly say "you can use this data and you can do all what you want" no restrition about the use of this data. In your example Bronwen do an illegal thing, take "something with a lincense" and trasfom it in "something without license" or better "something that you can use like you want without constraints". Naturally this is only my idea and I'm not a lawyer :-) . --ValterVB (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: This is an important point and I think that an explicit parer from legal team is fundamental: "Can I add data under CC by in Wikidata if I add citation?" If official answer is yes, probably we can add much more data than now, but in this case I don't understand CC0 license. --ValterVB (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

To further clarify, not only is Bronwen doing an illegal (and deliberate) thing, but so is Cerys (although not deliberate, but careless).

Yes - we definitely need some explicit text from the WMF legal team. I think the answer to the first question: "Can I add data under CC by in Wikidata if I add citation?" [assuming citation is the same as reference] is:

Yes - if you are creating one statement for one item

No - if you are importing all (or a substantial part) of a dataset

But there should be a second question: "Can I add large parts or all of a data set under CC by in Wikidata if I add a copyright statement (such as 'Contains data from Angharad's Research © copyright and database rights, Angharad Evans, 2017, (link to license), (link to original work)?", to which I think the answer is Yes.

I think CC0 is as I've described it, but I think many people who work on Wikidata think it is something different. I provided a link to the Creative Commons faq on CC0 earlier, but here it is again. One important thing from the faq is that "CC0 does not affect other persons’ rights in the work". Anyone who says "is CC0" means that "you can use this data and do anything you want with it without restriction" is wrong.

However, it is certainly possible to create a knowledge base that only includes data in the public domain and mass donations where the donors release their own data under a CC0 license. You can then license such a knowledge base under a CC0 license, and also say that "you can use this data and do anything you want with it without restriction", and that would be correct.

However, as soon as you add something where the copyright is held by someone else (which you should attribute properly) you can still release under CC0 but you can no longer truthfully say "you can use this data and do anything you want with it without restriction".

As an aside, the occasional extraction of one parameter from a database can be regarded as fair use, but the wholesale extraction of data and structure from a copyright database (such as CC-BY or OGL) would require attribution, and that is the point where you can no longer truthfully say "you can use this data and do anything you want with it without restriction". Wikidata has passed that point sometime ago. I know of one mass import in 2014 that would certainly pass that point, but I suspect there are many others, and quite possibly earlier... I think there are three options:

If Wikidata wants to truthfully say "you can use this data and do anything you want with it without restriction", we probably need to remove an awful lot of statements and items.
If Wikidata wants to expand and continue to include more data released under CC-BY and OGL, we should stop saying things like "you can use this data and do anything you want with it without restriction". We would need to add attribution statements somewhere, but we could still release under a CC0 license (but without making exaggerated claims about what you can do with it).
A third option might be to also include data from CC-BY-SA sources, and only release or show that data under a share alike license. Technically possible, but a nightmare to administer...

I think I favour the second option - there is a mass of CC-BY and OGL data out there, which would be even more useful when combined with the interlinking of data that Wikidata provides. However, if the Wikidata community wants to keep saying "you can use this data and do anything you want with it without restriction", then I'll help with the cleanup... Robevans123 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if Robevans123 is correct in his example above. If Cerys takes Angharad's work from Wikidata and includes it in a product, is Cerys really in breach of copyright of Angharad's work? --Gnom (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gnom: I'm pretty sure that I am correct. The only absolute defence against copyright infringement is if someone has created something original and totally independent of another person's efforts. There are guidelines that allow re-use to some extent (fair use/research/non-commercial educational works etc), but even unintentional use is copyright infringement - the way it is treated in law may be different; Bronwen's actions may breach criminal law, Cerys's action may be treated under civil law. In the case that I described Angharad's first recourse would be a polite message to Cerys asking for acknowledgement, which she would probably be happy to do. If, for some strange reason, Cerys refused to do this, then Angharad could take civil action to force acknowledgement (or removal of data from Cerys's product), and seek legal costs.

Many years ago George Harrison (Q2643) was successfully sued for royalties over the song My Sweet Lord (Q1476003) in which he, unintentionally and unconsciously, copied much of the theme of He's So Fine (Q5688613) by The Chiffons (Q1386995)... Robevans123 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robevans123, please note that we are talking about database law, and not about music: Doesn't the incorporation of the previously protected data into Wikidata "lift" the copyright protection, since the individual data points (now incorporated in Wikidata) cannot be copyrighted? --Gnom (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Back to Gnom's post. Thanks for clarifying the fact that we can, if we choose to, add any data covered by an Open Government License into Wikidata. But I still need some clarity on exactly how we provide sufficient and correct acknowledgement. As JHeald pointed out, in the case of data provided by Ordnance Survey (the Information Providers in the OGL), the attribution statement they require is "Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database rights (year)". I don't think "simply by linking to the appropriate government page under "source"" is sufficient. It really is a matter of where we put that statement (probably the Wikidata copyright page, if it was a bit more prominent), or possibly a separate "Sources" page, again reasonably prominent (a link from the main page).Robevans123 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Page to outline the benefits and challenges of using facts from Wikidata on other Wikimedia projects[edit]

Dear all

Over the past week I have been working on a page to provide information about reusing Wikidata data on other Wikimedia projects which is now at Wikidata:Wikidata in Wikimedia projects.

I wrote it with the following things in mind:

To be as simple as possible with as little assumed knowledge as possible other than that the reader may have some experience contributing to another Wikimedia project.
People who are reading it may not know much about Wikidata, have misconceptions about it, or may be against Wikidata data being used on their Wikimedia project.
That the page could reduce the number of repeat discussions on the same resistance to Wikidata data being used on other Wikimedia projects and could act as a combination of introduction to Wikidata, a FAQ about Wikidata data on other Wikimedia project and provide examples of where it is happening already.

When read it, please keeping in mind:

It is a first version, it will need some love to get it to a high standard, I think the weakest section related to Wikidata data quality, if anyone knows of any studies that could be added that would be great.
When adding text please please be concise, TLDR is a big problem
What is planned in future and putting this in to address any issues
As always typos and grammar
Anything I’ve missed or fudged, I’m slowly working through a list of discussions I've added to the discussion page (I’ve only really done the first one).

While writing it it has become clear that whilst Wikidata’s basic instructions are better than some other Wikimedia projects they still need improving. If we are expecting contributors from other Wikimedia projects to trust, use and contribute to Wikidata we have to make it more understandable and easier to use. Much of the resistance about reusing Wikidata data on other Wikimedia projects stems from concerns that Wikidata is confusing, improving instructions will go some way towards addressing this. The most common activity of contributors from other projects on Wikipedia will be adding statements and references, Help:Sources learning curve is too steep, we need simple instructions for simple tasks, videos would be really helpful also.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the page. I think it's a bit too long already, actually. Maybe we should make a short list that links into this one? I am already starting to think maybe it should be a project and not just one page. So each page could be a set of links to relevant discussions on various language Wikipedia village pumps (the recurring discussions). I know that English has had quite a few recurring discussions, but I am not sure if these are exactly the same discussions in other languages (or for Commons or Wikisource). Poking around the various encyclopedia datasets for example, I noticed the ADB and a few others has created items for each article on German Wikisource, but the ODNB hasn't done this and opted to index each article in English Wikisource to an item about the topic of the article (which I think is better, and of course, many of those topic items already existed). In order to centralize such data mapping decisions we really need to be able to centralize community discussions somehow, but I am not sure this page does that right now, as is. Jane023 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jane023 (talk • contribs • logs), I think the examples section is just going to keep growing, I don't really know what to include and what to exclude, I feel like the other sections of the page are basically all leading up to the Examples of data reuse section, and information on things like what control the wiki using (something users on en.wiki have made very clear they want) is the essential information, but the information before is context which is needed..... --John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an outstanding first effort. Outstanding because it is not only text, the layout, the use of some graphics make it easier to read. While I understand a wish for a shorter format, this easily becomes a self defeating exercise. There is already too much splattered around Wikidata to follow and the discussions have become more angry, acrimonious lately. The tone is friendly and that too is an achievement.

If anything keep this format and have more of these easy to read explanatory texts. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM:, you're making me blush :). I've hit the limit of my knowledge of Wikidata, I think linking to developments planned for tracking Wikidata changes from other Wikimedia projects (I guess in Phabricator) is really important to add specifics to, if you know where I could find them? Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I like this page. Breg Pmt (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

OK I was confused because I was expecting this page: User:John Cummings/Wikidata in Wikimedia projects. Did you write that first and then try to flip it in order to make it more positive? Both pages are good, for different reasons. The first tells people how to go about fixing and contributing, and the other tells people how to reply to blanket negative assertions. Both are needed. Jane023 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: thanks, I need to go back and add this in, maybe as a FAQ or something... I'll keep thinking about it. I'm going to do a lot of Wikidata documentation over the next 12 months. --John Cummings (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My first instinct is that I find the claim that individuals adding data is the most common way new statements get created to be doubtful. I would expect more bot creations. Especially among the data that was added in the last months. ChristianKl (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Best practices for using Wikidata Properties on a separate site?[edit]

I'm looking for pointers on best practices in using the Wikidata properties/ontologies on a separate Wikibase instance. I'm going to create a dataset of things that are too obscure/of local interest only and will not meet the Wikidata Notability guidelines and so shouldn't go into wikidata.org. I plan on setting up my own Wikibase instance and domain, but I'd really want to be able to use the properties that the Wikidata community has put together: P31 should mean the same thing for people editing my site as it does for people editing Wikidata, etc.

Also, is there a good way to keep identifies namespaced separately in different instances? I'd like 'P31' to mean the same thing and be called the same thing, but I think it'd be nice to not call my entities 'Q1234' etc. (Someday in a linked data setup if someone tries to combine the two datasets, it might be nice to be very clear that the identifiers are from different universes)

Are there any sites out there that I should look at for inspiration/best practices? Is it possible to set up a wikibase instance and import only the properties from a backup but not any of the entities?

Also, apologies if this is the wrong forum to ask questions about this that are wikidata-like but not explicitly wikidata.org - if there's somewhere else I should go, I'd appreciate the redirect. Thanks! Erik s paulson (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There are at least one or two talks scheduled for WikidataCon that address this - see Wikidata:WikidataCon 2017/Submissions/Integrating a custom Wikibase Instance (Rhizome) and Wikidata via SPARQL for instance - I'd suggest contacting the presenters or others involved for more details. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Erik s paulson: What kind of data do you want to store? ChristianKl (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey of Scottish Witchcraft Database[edit]

Hi, at the University of Edinburgh we are looking to offer students on the Data Science for Design MSc course the opportunity to take part in a data import and work through the process of how to map one dataset to be imported in to Wikidata. The dataset we are looking at working with is the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft Database with records on 3000-4000 accused witches and their trials. We have cleared that the database can be imported to Wikidata and we think it would make for a really interesting dataset addition to Wikidata once it has been linked with other datasets on Wikidata as the visualisations have not been updated in some 14 years. NavinoEvans has already suggested a 3 step process:

MATCH matching all of the witches to Wikidata items manually (using Mix'n'Match).
CREATE MISSING ITEMS using QuickStatements and
ADD EXTRA DATA (e.g. date of birth, gender etc) through a series of QuickStatements imports for adding additional data they have about the witches.

I am looking to offer this as a group project for students at the Data Science for Design MSc's "Data Fair" on 26 October 2017 so please let me know if this would be a viable dataset to work with as the interested students would then work on it until 11 December. This is when they would present what they did in terms of the import and showcase some visualisations of their work. The database is stored in MS Access so is there a standard way of converting from Access? Finally, is the first step matching up all the properties that would need created? Nav mentioned that the inclusion of a property such as 'Mentioned in' may be problematic if say we wanted to include a link to people mentioned in a witch trial. Can you let me know what your initial thoughts are on the import anyway? (I am hoping that a successfully managed Wikidata assignment may lead on to other further datasets being imported in future assignments). Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about whether these should go into Wikidata - we've historically been a bit cautious about completely importing historical people databases of this kind, where the subjects are (mostly) unlikely to be represented elsewhere in the historical record. Many of the entries are very minimalist - eg A/EGD/2341 amounts to "in 1660, there was a woman called Jean Campbell, who was from Kirriemuir or Bute, and she was involved in a witch trial, about which we know nothing.". As a result, matching to mix-and-match is unlikely to get many useful hits, and the imported data would mostly not link to anything else. It feels like you wouldn't get very rewarding results from this particular dataset - are there any others you could look at? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's great that you plan to give your students a task of importing data into Wikidata.

To make a good import it would be great to have an external IDs on your end. Afterwards we can create a properties of our end that contains entries of the external ID. Likely one ID for people and another one for trials. I think it would be great to have the data inside Wikidata. In cases where a person died there's a date of death that can be used to match entries in other databases. In other cases "First Name/Last Name/Pariah/Old enough to be tried at year X" might also be enough for someone to later do matches to other data sources.

As far as links to other data sets go, it's plausible that we have entries for the ministers involved in the witch trials from other data sets and I think we also have existing items for pariahs.

I don't think Mix&Match will help you much given that most of the people in your database won't have entries in Wikidata. The biggest problem is likely matching the pariah that's written in your database to pariah items in our database.

We you want to go forward a good next step would be to create a property proposal for the external ID properties. It would make sense to make that proposal and have an agreement from our community to create the properties before October 26 (and given that proposal take at least a week it might make sense to have it open sooner. ChristianKl (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Protecting country names[edit]

Following from Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/09#People_changing_country_names, it looks like the amount of this type of vandalism seems to be increasing (some examples from the last 24 hours: [1], [2], [3], for more see [4]) and it's not always caught immediately ([5] took 7 hours). Country names are very high profile, and vandalism for them affects Wikipedias using Wikidata information.

Can we protect the labels for specific entries - and if so, can that be applied to country names asap? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

We can only protect entire items, not parts of it (such as labels only). If you feel that protection is necessary for a specific item due to excessive vandalism, you can request it at the Administrators' noticeboard. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's not good. What I'm after is the equivalent of move-protection on Wikipedias - people should still be able to edit the content, but not the label. Does this need a technical request to the developers, or is it something that needs community consensus (or both)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Labels are content of items just as sitelinks and statements are, thus it would definitely require technical changes by the developers. However, given the fact that this is a rather drastic restriction of the openness of this project, I would also suggest to ask for community concensus. An alternative without technical changes would be to define a policy for permanently semi-protected items via community consensus. The core items are in fact very robust meanwhile, but on the other hand this project lives from the idea that anyone can edit. Just as Wikipedias do. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

From watching the fall-out of problems caused by vandals/edit warriors changing the names & values of Wikidata objects on the other side, I'd say this is the point of the spear of any content wars that either have spilled over from a given Wikipedia project -- or will. Thus I believe it is reasonable to request a technical change that specific values of a Wikidata object be protected. Better to have advance notice & flexibility for Wikidata admins to respond to bad-faith edits, then find out a data object has been suborned 6 months after the fact. -- Llywrch (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess that with special:abusefilter it could be possible to just protect the labels and descriptions of the country names in cases where we know that all such labes are correct. However countrynames are corner case where it can be done with af. --Zache (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zache: That sounds like a good option, is there a place where we can propose that? BTW, after some more investigation, it looks like a good chunk of these are coming from mobile traffic - where, it seems, you can't edit statements, you can only edit labels/descriptions (at the top of the page) and sitelinks (at the bottom). So maybe it's not a surprise that there's more vandalism of the names of countries than any other info in their entries. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

wikilinks on wikisource editions through wikidata[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Books@Yann, Tpt:

Hi,

Wikisource editions of texts, are edition (Q3331189) items that must be linked to the work item through edition or translation of (P629) (see Wikidata:WikiProject Books).

Unfortunately, this means that wikisource texts are not directly linked anymore to each other, thus breaking the link between the different language.

I remember once reading here about a template that could restore these links, using the parent/work item to automatically link all editions, thus allowing to not only have access to other languages, but also other editions in same language.

Do you remember who talked about it ? It would be very important to have this, or even an automatic feature in wikisource, to automatically link texts to all other texts linked through edition or translation of (P629) to the same work item...

Thanks for your help !

Subtypes of geothermal power stations[edit]

Hi. There are three types of geothermal power station (Q30565277):

Can someone confirm if the way I've linked each other is correct? I would like to use the same method for other types of power stations as well. Thanks in advance. Reh man 12:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Using subclass of (P279) is the right way to go. But has parts of the class (P2670) is not the inverse property of subclass of (P279), so just add a link from the more specific classes to the more general class but not the other way round. --Pasleim (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Pasleim. So you mean there is not backward linkage at all? Reh man 15:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Especially because these are subclasses exclusive to geothermal power stations.... Reh man 15:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There is neither backward linking possible nor needed. --Pasleim (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Reh man 04:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Add a BikeTouring Wiki to Wikidata[edit]

A new BikeTouring Wiki BikeWOW has been started what is the process of adding it to Wikidata? - Salgo60 (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should support a just-started project that is editable by everyone. I highly doubt if it is notable. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

But if it has been going on for +years and has good content then it can be a candidate? - Salgo60 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe as a property, but that depends on consensus. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just some info: There are 120 articles in that wiki currently, and nearly all of the edits this month seem to be by two authors. Syced (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It's possible to add an external ID property. At this time there's however no reason to do that to link to 120 articles. ChristianKl (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

language property[edit]

People told me to use language of work or name (P407). Other people told me to use original language of work (P364). What is correct? seeUser_talk:Freakymovie. Freakymovie 14:12, 9 October 2017

That is not what they have said. The deprecation discussion for the property determined that it should be retained for movies, though should be migrated for written works. I believe that some have complained that you have been migrating movies. There was also some level of agreement that there would be a coordinated process to undertake the moves, though I stopped paying attention to that detail though it probably is in around the pertinent aforementioned discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually consensus was reached to merge original language of work (P364) with language of work or name (P407) (without exceptions). Only in the subsequent discussions user ask for exceptions but no consensus on that is reached yet. Nevertheless, no massive movement of properties should be done yet, especially not with QuickStatements, because with QuickStatements we are losing all references and qualifiers. --Pasleim (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've read somewhere a request for a tool to move a statement (identical with qualifiers and sources) from a property to another... which, in fact, would be the same as changing the number code of the property... this could be very useful for that kind of case. Is it doable ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem we have is that a consensus was reached, but the proposal didn't actually include a plan. Now the few remaining supporters struggle to come up with a plan. We obviously don't want to loose any information or complicate maintenance going forward. If you add data, please follow whatever is suggested by the relevant WikiProject.
--- Jura 15:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I will follow WikiProjects. I don't delete references, only edited items without references. FreakyMovie 08:02, 10 October 2017

@Freakymovie: See WD:PFD#P407 and P364, there's a huge huge and huge section that provides all the problems of languages properties. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Need help with a SPARQL query[edit]

Hello, I would like to find the items that have an entry (or statement) at Wikimedia Commons and an entry at any Wikipedia project, but not on English Wikipedia. Is it possible to do that by making a SPARQL query at query.wikidata.org? If yes, can I get help for building such a query? If yes, then where should I ask for help? Thank you. Fructibus (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fructibus: I guess Wikidata:Request a query is the place to ask for query help.

I tried the following query, but it times out if not limited, maybe someone can come up with a more efficient query. In the below code the number of results is limited to 1,000.

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?commons
WHERE
{
  ?commons   schema:about ?item . FILTER(CONTAINS(str(?commons),'commons.wikimedia.org'))
  ?wikipedia schema:about ?item . FILTER(CONTAINS(str(?wikipedia),'wikipedia.org'))
  OPTIONAL { 
    ?enwp    schema:about ?item . FILTER(CONTAINS(str(?enwp),'en.wikipedia.org'))
  } FILTER(!BOUND(?enwp))
}
LIMIT 1000

Try it!

--Larske (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You might want to filter out all of the category items first. Since most things on Commons are *not* on Wikidata yet, it might be more helpful in general if your query first counts all of the various types of things that have commons categories, which might point you in the general direction you are looking for. It is hard to make such general queries without timing out. Commons is very big. Jane023 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No time to test now and give you a link, you could try with Petscan, maybe. Very efficient filtering in or out sitelinks ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a slightly tweaked version of User:Larske's query, without the string comparisons, so it may be a bit quicker; but it still has to be LIMITed to only a small number

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?commonscat WHERE {
    ?item wdt:P373 ?commonscat .
    ?wikipedia schema:about ?item . 
    ?wikipedia schema:isPartOf ?site .
    ?site wikibase:wikiGroup "wikipedia" .
    MINUS { 
      ?enwp schema:about ?item .
      ?enwp schema:isPartOf <https://en.wikipedia.org/>
    } 
  } LIMIT 1000

Try it! Jheald (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Larske: - @Jane023: - @Hsarrazin: - @Jheald: Thanks a lot for all the answers, awesome scripts! This script is actually generating a list of articles that are missing in the English Wikipedia - complementing the en:Wikipedia:Requested articles. Is it possible to make a version to exclude lists and human settlements and administrative divisions? And is it possible to make the script in a way that I can start searching from the Row X from the database? So I can skip some of the results I got in the previous queries.

I never heard about PetScan before, a lot of goodies developed lately! Where can I ask for help with making a PetScan script? Fructibus (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Petscan is a development and expansion of old Catscan gadget on Commons, and Autolist here, by User:Magnus Manske.

it allows to mix info from wp or ws or even commons projects, with wikidata, or between them...

it is much more intuitive than SPARQL, and that's a good thing for people who are dumb at query syntax, like me :) - you have a small manuel here.

you may combine Categories with the presence or absence of templates, and the presence or absence of wikidata item, or specific wikilinks... - you may also use a SPARQL query as input, and filter only items which have, or don't have, some specific statements…

you can also easily adapt your search to refine what you want.

from a list of articles (or pages) that still aren't linked on wikidata, you can use Duplicity to find matching in existing items :)

and finally, each Petscan query is given a specific PSID, which can then be used to call back the same search easily when you want :)

I'm trying to build a query to give you an idea. --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Google doodles[edit]

Has there been any discussion about creating a property for these? I was wondering because I saw we have Google Doodle (Q18156042) but not much seems to be done with it. Jane023 (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/06#Google Doodles (you can search archives from Wikidata:Project chat/Archive). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks, I guess nobody cares, so a property is a bit premature. I just added one the same way. Jane023 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I care: Wikidata:Property proposal/Google Doodle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I totally support this, even though I have no idea how it will pan out (so many different topics it boggles my mind). Jane023 (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

About number of deaths (P1120)[edit]

Why Property:P1120 appear 2 constraint statements: number of deaths (P1120)property constraint (P2302) range constraint (Q21510860) / maximum quantity (property constraint) (P2312)250000000 and number of deaths (P1120)property constraint (P2302) range constraint (Q21510860) / maximum quantity (property constraint) (P2312)10000?--林勇智 13:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed one of the constraint. --Pasleim (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Data from Wikivoyage[edit]

What data from Wikivoyage may be kept on Wikidata? Wikivoyage does not have a restriction against original research, and has no requirement for verifiable sources. Cheers, Pbsouthwood (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I can imagine most visitor attractions would be desirable as locally important enough for any Wikipedia. Likewise all major transportation options for local access. Jane023 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage does not independently generate data, and, in fact, uses a lot Wikidata via the Listing template and also page banners. Information about attractions (including working hours etc), hotels and restaurants can be stored on Wikidata, there was an RfC about is. There are also map contours, but this is pretty much it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Would that include attractions which are not mentioned in "reliable sources"? Wikivoyage has articles on dive sites which are researched and described originally on Wikivoyage.

Which properties are appropriate to add?

Do you know where I can find that RFC? I am new here and finding things takes longer. Pbsouthwood (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the RfC I mentioned, I guess most of the properties have never been created. I do not think diving cites you mention are eligible for Wikidata. OTOH, on Wikivoyage we sometimes use pages for territories which are subjectively defined (usually from the point of view of the traveller); these can be the same or different across language versions. This is OR, but it is accepted on Wikidata since any object which has an article on any of Wikimedia projects is notable for Wikidata. (In a sense, same was as Commons galleries - these are OR as well).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage's banners are an example of Wikivoyage original content that use present in Wikidata and reused by many tools such as Reasonator and recently a French government online GIS database whose name I don't remember. Listings in the "See" and "Do" sections are worth including into Wikidata. It is true that Wikivoyage does not require a reference for each fact, but similarly most infoboxes imported into Wikidata have zero reference... Each listing has an URL, maybe that could be considered a reference? The URL is always the listing's homepage, for instance the homepage of a museum. The museum's name, opening hours, latitude/longitude, address, phone number are not going to get any better reference than the museum's homepage anyway. Cheers! Syced (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes we do collect say opening times even from museums which do not have a homepage, and I see nothing wrong even in importing these to Wikidata (though it should be appropriately tagged as unsourced).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Taking a random example: Wikivoyage English has solid information about Bait al-Baranda Museum whereas Wikidata has almost no details (Bait al-Baranda Museum (Q12200363)), and the only Wikipedia article is in Arabic.

I would consider most cases to be unproblematic and can't immediately come up with Wikivoyage content that would be a bad fit. In the case of a Museum the Museum is clearly a reliable source for whatever inforamtion Wikidata could store about it (and the source doesn't have to be online). I would recommend that you err on the side of including data in Wikidata. If there's an edge case we can discuss the case. ChristianKl (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is a Wikiproject a valid catalog?[edit]

Since the disccusion on RfD got closed without consensus about this part, I'll ask the question again in a more broad audience. This currently violates constraints as well, I don't think we should use this property for incrowd projects. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. The whole Black lunch table has been explained to me about 4 times now and I still don't get it. I do understand the need for list monitors for these things (also local WLM initiatives where there is no "list-by-legislation" and only "list-by-historical-society-recommendation". Not sure how to set this up properly. Jane023 (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that you have linked to the correct discussion, @Sjoerddebruin? I don’t see how a WikiProject catalog is important there. #Q28914245 on the same page seems more related. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks; ping @Marsupium, GerardM, ValterVB, Pasleim as participants of that discussion.

First of all, the catalog property should be used as qualifier of a catalog code (P528) only, which is not the case here. Therefore, without a publicly accessible identifier in the catalog I wouldn’t accept that. I also fear that we could be in a situation that we consider each Wikimedian notable for an item—although there are no external references available. That is certainly not desirable. On the other hand, the item in question has an external identifier (I just assume at this point that it is about the same person), so it is notable independently of this “catalog”. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I closed the discussion on RfD because the person is notable independently of the catalog statement. Note that the item is not about a Wikimedian but it is a candidate to create an article during a Black Lunch Table edit-a-thon, see en:Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table/Lists of Articles. --Pasleim (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like more input on this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for late replay, personally I think that this kind of use, is out of scope of Wikidata. I don't think that items like this, this or this (but there are hundreds like these) are useful to wikidata, it's also impossible check if a person is really in Black lunch table, I asked but no answer about this. If they are really artist need some reference to confirm the fact so we can keep them here. Instead, if the only use is monitors for some Wikimedia initiative is better find a different solution that don't "pollute" this project. --ValterVB (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That horse left the barn. Also, do consider what Wikidata is there for and, all these projects have their people and they are the ones that include items on a list. All these projects have their user stories and consequently in their opinion the entries are valid. When you talk about "pollution" it is as if a bear does not shit in a lake because the water is fresh. Wikidata is there to be used and the more use we get out of it the more relevant it becomes. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but google translate don't help me in this case, can you try to write more simple? --ValterVB (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the (incorrect) use of the property helps you determine if the items should be kept or deleted.
--- Jura 06:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Instances of humans made additional instance of something else[edit]

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q11608&diff=568098673&oldid=543029921 ??? Found by looking at the user's contributions, since s/he tagged smartphone models as instances of smartphones. Does WD store any article about an instance of a smartphone? A specific phone, produced, sold, owned, ... 80.171.238.123 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So - why can't you fix the problems or maybe better start a conversation with this user on the talk page? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

member of (P463) and parliamentary terms, which way to fix?[edit]

At the moment the practice has been to mark UK (and some other parliaments) members has been to say "member of" then "nnth United Kingdom Parliament", see example Ramsay MacDonald (Q166646). The constraint violation is that "member of" needs to be an organisation. So we either have to fix upstream, or review whether the use of "member of" is correct. At this moment, I am thinking that for the parliamentarians we should be considering migrating the property to be used to be participant of (P1344), as it seems that parliamentary terms are more of an event. I would appreciate others' thoughts. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Using member of (P463) for these is largely deprecated, and (for the UK at least), are all in the process of being moved to position held (P39) statements instead. --Oravrattas (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this was a bit of an improvised approach from a couple of years ago. I've just this week started importing the "correct" P39 format back to the 1830s. I'll be removing the P463 versions as we go along; they're useful as a backup error-check so I don't want to remove them preemptively. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: and @Oravrattas: What about the property participant of (P1344), as mentioned by user:billinghurst? Breg Pmt (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Oravrattas, billinghurst, Pmt: To be honest I don't think it's worth going to the effort of doing that - this information will be in the P39 values anyway (being part of 51st United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084468) is implictly stated by Member of the 51st Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q41582627), and we will try and make sure a sensible query finds that) so it would just be duplication. Cutting down the number of ways to say the same thing seems a good idea :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a page on Wikidata that shows how other Wikimedia projects are using Wikidata?[edit]

Hi all

Is there a page on Wikidata that shows how other Wikimedia projects are using Wikidata? I've been working on a page to explain more about how and why or Wikimedia project use Wikidata and I started a conversation on en.wiki to ask for their opinion (although its mainly been co-opted by one or two users who don't like Wikidata to complain about it). They have started a kind of hand curated list on en.wiki but I would like to have something on Wikidata that gives examples over many languages and projects.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK that’s a bit difficult, since “using Wikidata” is not a well-defined scenario. I am aware of the “Page information” page of each item (linked in the left menu), which has a field “Wikis subscribed to this entity” in the “Page properties” section. However, having a sitelink is already enough for a subscription, and I am not sure whether this subscription is always updated properly. Projects that “use” the item without having a sitelink appear there as well, but I cannot explain which kind of “use” triggers a subscription. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Templates using data from Wikidata (Q11985372)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for the numbers there is Grafana dashboard, but it doesn't really tell how wikidata is used. --Zache (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment @John Cummings: The English Wikisource is utilising wikidata for populating some of its fields in its author header: image, birth and death data, plus sister interwikis; and the broader authority control templates. Commons is using Wikidata in its Creator: namespace.In general, for people's names, the data is still insufficiently complete, eg. many are wikidata items are missing "family field" and partial "given name" either missing names, or no serial ordinal to order names. The Wikisources seem okay to migrating to data pulls, though need reassurance that the local data is present at WD prior to removing local fields. It is a journey as there are many Wikisource editions that do not have their data even set here at this time, and there is no easy means to push the data from Wikisource to Wikidata, so there we await those tools in development. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst:, perfect, thanks. --John Cummings (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Any showcase items or examples for military figures[edit]

To Arthur Henry Grant (Q16943854) am trying to add that he was an officer in Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers (Q7374326). I cannot find the representation of military unit. So can anyone suggest a good example of a military officer to follow? Wikidata:Showcase wasn't evidently helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

More asking than answering, what about use organization or club to which the subject belongs; member of (P463) Breg Pmt (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pmt, billinghurst: We discussed this a couple of years back and the consensus that member of (P463) was a good approach - see notes on Property talk:P463 and Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/05#Military units. You probably also want to add military branch (P241). At some point I want to write up some general guidance on how to handle military people but it's hard to find the time! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Thanks a lot. And military rank (P410) as qualificator in position held (P39) as officer Breg Pmt (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing an existing article[edit]

Q I am new to Wikidata, but I want to edit to correct and improve an existing article. I want to add some text, but mainly some inline book references and one External Links (a web site).

I don't want my incompetent editing to mess up the existing article

May I have some help? BFP1BFP1 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

On Wikidata we have item and not articles. Are you sure that you are at the right place and you don't want to contribute to a Wikipedia article? Otherwise can you describe in more detail what you want to do and which item you want to edit?ChristianKl (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we need encephalon (Q75865) and brain (Q1073)[edit]

Currently, both are listed to refer to FMA50801. Is there any difference in the two concepts? In the languages I speak (English, German) there's no article for encephalon (Q75865), so it's hard for me to evaluate the content. ChristianKl (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I used Google Translate for the French version and encephalon (Q75865) seems to be about Chordata brains. ChristianKl (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

indeed, brain (Q1073), the organ is comprised in encephalon (Q75865). 2 French different articles. --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Is that's the relationship can you map out with has part (P527) what the encephalon (Q75865) is supposed to contain according to the french? ChristianKl (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

since anatomy is clearly not my domain of expertise, I would not risk it. :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Hi: I'm a little confused with the new update of Recent Changes. Previously I could click IP contribs to show anonymous edits, but with the new filters when I click it the IP contribs aren't shown. I've tried with clearing all the filters, but still I can't see the them. Esteban16 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If you were used to the old interface, you can still switch to it. This link will work for the new one. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References to wmflabs?[edit]

On enwp, @Alsee: asked why Wikidata has references to wmflabs. Beyond seeing that Wiki Loves Monuments is involved, this has me stumped - can anyone provide some insight into this? Alsee's comment in full was "Regarding wmflabs refs: I spent a long time trying to figure out how to use the regular search box to search for wmflabs in wikidata refs, but I couldn't find any way to do so. Am I missing something simple, or is this content really not indexed?!? I finally resorted to teaching myself the wikidata database query language to search refs that way. That's crazy. Here's a query that pulls out some wmflabs refs. Anyway, the large majority of wmflabs hits go to tools.wmflabs.org/heritage. Those are all refs to content extracted from Wikipedia. I also found isolated instances of circular refs to wikidata itself via tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator and tools.wmflabs.org/scholia. There's also tools.wmflabs.org/whois and tools.wmflabs.org/geohack which are god-awful ways to effectively ref external sources." (I'm also trying to explain Wikidata's reference system to Alsee on enwp, help/insight would be appreciated.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel:

it indeed seems an awful way to make a reference to ... any info.

your query would be much more useful if it was possible to see on which items this is used, and if a bot or a human contributor added those.

I tried to tweak it, but I'm no good at those. Could you ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ok, finally found one : Gänsehäufel (Q23256) - it seems property Cultural heritage database in Austria ObjektID (P2951) indeed has a formatter URL (P1630) pointing to "https://tools.wmflabs.org/denkmalliste/index.php?action=EinzelID&ID=" - but it is an id, in fact. The whole adress can be easily changed by changing P1630, if info were accessible elsewhere on the web, from the same ID.

in fact, Commons too, uses the same database like commons:Category:Gänsehäufel - guess it's a workaround because the official database for Heritage monuments in Austria is not publicly accessible, see original discussion. --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

500k references within ~30 seconds, somewhat easy to find and investigate. The total number is unknown to me. Special:LinkSearch does not help here (no namespace filter available), but one might want to run an SQL query against the externallinks table of the wikidatawiki_p database. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Thanks, that query definitely makes it a lot easier to see what's going on! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have myself added quite a lot of references to wmflabs (e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1622083#P3761 ). The references I have added point to https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py , which does not draw its data from any Wikimedia project, but from the WHOIS system. Let me know if this was still problematic. − Pintoch (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pintoch: In those cases, why not reference arin directly? There's a link to that page from the wmflabs page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: that would only work for ARIN-issued IP addresses, whereas this gateway works for everything… − Pintoch (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

True, but the gateway generally links to the IP address issuer's page describing the IP address, so can't you just follow that link each time and use that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In principle, yes of course! In practice, this means one more slow HTTP request in a context where they are expensive. − Pintoch (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pintoch: I'm not sure what you mean by "slow HTTP request ... expensive"? I wonder if this would be something a bot could do - look for cases of these links and try to replace them with the direct link. What do you think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In general references to wmflabs are a poor way to indicate where the information actually came from. The topic really came up because the wmflabs.org/heritage refs are effectively an obscure synonym for "Imported from Wikipedia". On Wikipedia we have been considering filtering out information which is unsourced, or sourced as Imported from Wikipedia. The wmflabs/heritage references effectively cloak the source, and are bypassing that filter. I'm also surprised to discover the scale of the issue. Wikidata has over 1.1 million wmflabs.org/heritage refs, at which point the search times out. Alsee (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

American Civil War[edit]

Do we have anyone with expertise on or interest in the American Civil War? We have a number of items for individual Union Army Divisions, Departments and Districts (Q7885358), but none of these have <instance of> as far as I can tell. It would be great for an expert to build out at least a simple hierarchy of items for the Union and Confederate armies so these things can be categorized. - PKM (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've posted a note at en.Wikipedia's Military History project, asking for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@PKM: I am a project coordinator of WikiProject Military history on en Wikipedia. Could you please elaborate the need, so that I could help you in the best manner possible. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks! I don't know how parts of armies are typically structured in Wikidata. We need classes and subclasses for things like Confederate Army of Kentucky (Q2917624): no description, Department of the Susquehanna (Q5260564): unit of the Union Army during the American Civil War and District of California (Q5283395): Union Army unit during the American Civil War. These units are related to specific geographical areas, and in the Union Army it seems that a district is part of a department. Union Army (Q1752901) itself has no <instance of>, although Confederate States Army (Q1125021) is <instance> of "army". We might want a hierarchy so that "Union Army" <has parts of the class> "?Department of the Union Army", and those subdivisions have classes for their parts. But if we don't want to build a class structure for individual armies, we could standardize on something like <instance of> "?command division" (of) "Union Army". So I'd like someone who works with armies in Wikidata to advise. - PKM (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@PKM: and @Pigsonthewing, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I think military unit (Q176799) as explained in german Ein Verband (Vbd.) ist in den Streitkräften die gliederungsmäßige oder zeitlich begrenzte Zusammenfassung mehrerer militärischer Einheiten in der Stärke eines Bataillons oder Regiments... is the correct <instance of>. It has already been used for Army of the Potomac (Q653089). Breg Pmt (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pmt: - military unit (Q176799) sounds good! Thanks for finding that! - PKM (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@PKM: CORRECTION The correct <instance> should be major military unit (Q4005772): organizational level unit, usually regiment or larger in German Zu den Großverbänden zählen in aufsteigender Reihenfolge die Brigade, die Division, das Korps oder Armeekorps, die Armee und die Heeresgruppe sowie weiter vergleichbare zeitweilige oder ständige Truppenkörper wie beispielsweise der Kriegsschauplatz oder gemäß Clausewitz das Kriegstheater Breg Pmt (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay! Thanks, I'll do those now. - PKM (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

manager/director (P1037)[edit]

From an English-language point of view, this property does not make much sense as it is.

For one, the label "manager/director" is nonsensical. A manager is one thing, and a director is another. Of course, the exact definition of either can vary from one organisation to another, or in other countries.

I also see that it is being used to list commanders in United States Army Europe (Q181197). Which doesn't look right to me.

Perhaps it would be better if we were to follow the same model as is already used for things like political offices such as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Q14211). This would mean having to create new items for specific positions, such as "Commander of the 5th Division", and linking that item to the main item for the "5th Division". In other words a way in which we can create specific job titles without having to create a new property for each one (there could be 1000s of them). Danrok (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Danrok: For a military commander, you can use commander of (P598) and a link to the unit - so Ben Hodges (Q19798487) would have commander of (P598):United States Army Europe (Q181197) - this avoids having to create specific values to go in P39. There isn't really an appropriate property to link from the unit back to the commander, so to be honest, I'd advise just doing the commander > unit links and leave it there. This is generally the preferred way of handling positions/roles of people, anyway; we don't need all political office items to contain a list of holders. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Top 10% economists and Top 10% female economists now in Wikidata[edit]

During the last half year, and building on the work of @Bamyers99: and others, I've linked and added items for the complete sets of "top economists" as identified in the widely recognized Research Papers in Economics (Q206316) author rankings. The necessary checks to avoid duplicates have been largely facilitated by the latest enhancements of Mix-n-match, particularly the new "Multiple matches" list and the enriched item information, by @Magnus_Manske: Thanks!! -- Jneubert (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems with properties[edit]

Hwllo.There are problems with the properties:

Problem with YouTube
The problem of the proposals:There is no distinction between proposals so please distinguish using templates such as c:Template:DeletionHeader and c:Template:DeletionFooter between each of the
1. open (on hold) proposals
2. properties ready for creation
3. not done proposals
4. withdrawn proposals
5. ready proposals

Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't figure out what you mean. Please can you clarify? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 - property proposal status is distinguished by the value in the "status" field of the property proposal template - the allowed values are empty (still under discussion), "ready" (ready for creation), "not done" and "withdrawn" (no longer under discussion), "hold" (if on hold for some reason) and a property ID if created. Empty, ready, and hold proposals are listed on the various property proposal pages and all together on the overview page which is updated by a bot daily. "Ready" properties are also listed automatically in the Category:Properties ready for creation page. I think this is all working nicely right now, but if you're seeing a problem please clarify! ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith:The problem is that the color of the page itself is fixed and does not change by status, unlike the deletion requests on Wikipedia and Commons ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. @Pasleim: it's your bot, do you think you could show status or use it for color-coding somehow on the Overview page? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, or are you suggesting that a property proposal page itself should be color coded based on status? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And on the proposals pages themselves.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Update on creating a list of commonly used proccesses to format data to import it into Wikidata[edit]

Thanks for everyone's input on creating a list of commonly used proccesses to format data to import it into Wikidata. I've turned it into a table which is now available on this page. It is still missing a lot of information so please take a look and add what you can.

Thanks again

--John Cummings (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Birthday logo update[edit]

one year ago

We need a new version of last year's birthday logo; and the cropped version. @Incabell: Can you help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Here ya go :D --Incabell (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't we need something really new? Previous logo's always expressed their numbers. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin: If that's something that's wanted, I can do that over the weekend. I had somehow understood that last year's version should be updated and took it as "fix the number please" :) --Incabell (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Since no one confirmed this, I have not made another logo. --Incabell (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Incabell: :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity userpages[edit]

Today there have been several instances of new users registering with the names of various celebrities, and creating userpages that are essentially copies of those celebrities' articles on enwiki. Examples include User:Matt Baker (Presenter), User:Lindsay Dee Lohan, User:Beyonce (Singer) and User:Anna Katherine Popplewell. Anyone have any idea what's going on with these and what should be done with them? It's doubtful that any of these editors are the celebrities under whose names they are editing, and so far none of them have done any editing outside of creating those userpages. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Just ignore for as long as they're not breaking any rules. Danrok (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Impersonating other people is breaking rules according to the EnWiki rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Misleading_usernames). I see no good reason to allow this on our Wiki. ChristianKl (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to add {{Delete}} with deletion rationale “out of project scope” or copyvio (if that is the case) on these pages, so that they automatically appear at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Pages tagged with .7B.7BDelete.7D.7D. If you think that these accounts shall be blocked, you can request it at the Administrators' noticeboard. However, the Blocking policy does not cover such cases yet, so I am not sure how this would be handled… —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Tagged and deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2017 (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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

honorary degree: is it an award or an academic degree[edit]

I am wondering how others have been handling honorary degrees. Are they see as an academic degree (P512) and somehow qualified as being "honorary"; or are they considered an award received (P166)? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we need to fix the constraints somehow as the awards complains about that property use as not associated with awards; and I could not see a means then to utilise it differently when used academically and through honorary award. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

'Stated as' vs. 'author name string'[edit]

stated as (P1932) - (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
author name string (P2093) - (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It seems that the above are mutually redundant. Can anyone explain why two separate properties are needed, and if not, which should we deprecate/ delete? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, we suggest that people read property descriptions.
--- Jura 06:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

author name string (P2093) is a workaround property for author (P50) in cases where there is no reliable way to identify the author.

stated as (P1932) is used as qualifier on author (P50) to indicate how the value is printed in the source --Pasleim (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As helpful as usual, Jura. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is if anything Pasleim wrote can't be found on the property description page. What is missing?
--- Jura 07:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

author name string (P2093) is a workaround property for author (P50), when there is NO item for the author, or it is impossible to know which item would be correct (i.e. author (P50) cannot be identified just from what is written on the publication.

stated as (P1932) is used when author (P50) is known, but the name on a book seems different from the name on the item (authors with many pseudonyms, initials, etc.) this is not at all the same. stated as (P1932) cannot be used as property, only as qualifier, and it can also be used for other properties (like publishers or actors ; I even recall seeing it, recently, on a book). --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Noting that P1932 is a qualifier, whereas P2093 would be a direct, and is a much broader property than just author. Really useful for old references where a place name or business has morphed. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

And there is a third item, similar : named as (P1810) - it is used in movie distributions, but the use is exactly the same as stated as (P1932). Shouldn't these 2 be merged ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC) I have used the author string in the past in addition to the author property when the spelling in the book is not covered by the author item. It didn't occur to me that this was only used for when the author doesn't exist as an item. I didn't know about "stated as" at all. It might be helpful to point these things out better in the property discussion. I suppose alternative spellings of author's names should probably go into the alias field of the author item (if it exists) rather than the publication item (assuming that item in turn links out via various property identifiers to the literary work in question). Jane023 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

stated as (P1932) is older, and has been specifically created to answer the librarian's need to be able to catalog the author, AND how he is stated on the work ([[6]). Even if the pseudo is stated as alias in the author field, how will you know which books were published under a specific pseudo, if you don't have the info on the book ? also, many works signed by title or grade (Captain X, Count Y..., which are very ambiguous..., and not pseudonyms)

author name string (P2093) was only created because of the preparation of massive imports of scientific articles, as an easy dump, to allow for keeping info at hand, and afterwards create the authors. Please read Property talk:P2093 and Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/39#P2093. This is very explicit. It should not be used instead of stated as (P1932). --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like P2093 is missing a "value only" constraint. (The English description is clear about its use, but somehow we omitted a constraint).
--- Jura 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: I would suggest that where you need to add "stated as" that you would consider adding that to the alias label of the target, and also consider whether the target requires an additional item. I don't see this as alternative situation, I see it more as additional data.

Plus in the situations that Hsarrazin mentions, where you find a use of P2039 and the author is now identifiable, then you update to the specific item. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. I will also remove "author name string" when "author" is possible. Jane023 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent discussion with colleagues involved in the WikiCite initiative resulted in agreement to keep "author name string" when "author" is added, so that the available metadata is not lost. Of course, such metadata can be transferred to "stated as" (hence my suggestion that the two are mutually redundant). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well they can't be mutually redundant in the case where there is no item for the author yet. Jane023 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Consider: author (P50) -> "Unknown value"; qualified with stated as (P1932). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Navigation tool (maps, etc.) for navigation by navigator[edit]

We have breadcrumb (Q846205). What is the name of activity, tools and object, when a person uses breadcrumb (Q846205) to go through the links? --Fractaler (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Paired and unpaired organs[edit]

human eye (Q430024) (human ear (Q7362), human kidney (Q9377), etc.) is a paired organ? human eye (Q430024) is half (Q39373172) or dyad (Q29431432)? --Fractaler (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Human -> has part -> kidney -> quantity -> 2 ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

For the human eye I created set of human eyes (Q41890371) for you. In general it's helpful when you reference the FMA IDs when creating items like this. Feel free to create more of the items. ChristianKl (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Human's organs can be: 1) paired [7](dyad (Q29431432)), 2) upaired(one-component system (Q30103061)). Right? --Fractaler (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: A dyad is both of the organs at the same time. It's what the FMA calls "set". Do you see an issue with describing the content this way? ChristianKl (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

set of human eyes (Q41890371) (set of human eyes or pair of human eyes) is anatomical set (Q27058130)? anatomical set is a pair (group of 2)? --Fractaler (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If you go up the subclass tree you find that it subclasses "Anatomical set". Being an anatomical set itself doesn't mean that it's a pair. See http://xiphoid.biostr.washington.edu/fma/fmabrowser-hierarchy.html?fmaid=55652 . I wouldn't have an issue with adding an additional "antomical pair" class if you think that's necessary. ChristianKl (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this useful links, at once there is a weight of questions (material anatomical entity=material anatomical object? Anatomical set = group of anatomical object? Why Foundational Model of Anatomy (Q1406710) has not link to http://xiphoid.biostr.washington.edu/fma/index.html? Etc.) About anatomical pair (paired organ). They were created, but then they were deleted without discussion and I do not know what to do now. --Fractaler (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group - please consider joining![edit]

Hello all! For the upcoming development of Structured Data on Commons, I notice that it would be very helpful for me (and the entire Structured Commons team) to be able to work with a group of dedicated community members, from Commons and from Wikidata, whom we can approach for input regularly. Consider it a group of people who are OK to be pinged every now and then with (smaller) requests for feedback (not for larger decision-making, which should take place with the Commons community at large). So I would like to experiment with a focus group (see more info here). We can figure out how we can work best as we go along! I'd very much appreciate it if people who are very interested in Structured Commons would consider signing up. Many thanks! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Idea of a query example[edit]

Is it possible to get this Wikipedia list – List of top international rankings by country – from a Wikidata query? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedatum (talk • contribs) at 13. 10. 2017, 12:51‎ (UTC).

I don't think so, the data is the list is relatively unstructured and not easily modelable with Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think one approach would be to make the wikidata items for each of the individual ranking lists into instances of some sort of "international ranking list", then maybe add the values in the ranking for all the countries via a property like numeric value (P1181) with country (P17) qualifier, and then I expect you could generate something like this list via a SPARQL query. I'm not sure it's worth all that effort though... ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OTRS-permit[edit]

Hi, in Finland goverment data is currently mostly CC-BY which is not enough for Wikidata which needs CC0. However least in some cases it is possible to ask permit for storing data as CC0 and in commos this is marked using OTRS-permit. How it works in Wikidata and is there some examples for how it is done before? --Zache (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no OTRS service at Wikidata right now. In this topic (German language, some weeks old) @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) said that there is a WMF draft document about such a process (?), but she didn’t know about the progress and wanted to ask the legal team. I haven’t heard any news after that, though… —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Generational suffix[edit]

In a June 2013 request for comment, Wikidatians discussed how to create statements about various name components, including generational suffixes. I'd like to state that Johann Michael Keller (Q1695557) has 'generational suffix' the Younger (Q19838173). Should I propose a new property, or use an existing name property with qualifier, or another strategy? Runner1928 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

new filters for reCh tool[edit]

Patrolling recent changes is cumbersome but necessary way to keep vandalism at a low level. To make patrolling easier I created already a while ago the reCh tool. With the tool you can for example only display edits in a language you understand or you can mass-patroll edits by a specific user.

I have extended the tool with two new filters now:

only show edits on the most important 10,000 items (importance determined by the number of incoming links).
only show edits on items speficied by a PagePile. PagePile is a tool by User:Magnus Manske where you can create a list of pages using various sources (SPARQL, PetScan etc.).For example I created a PagePile with all sovereign states. The ID of the PagePile (11023) can be inserted in reCh tool and so you see only edits made on items about sovereign states.--Pasleim (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

VIAF ID sync[edit]

Heads-up: Test bot run to add IDs to (mostly) people items. Example. Bot edits (bot does other edits too).

I loaded a VIAF ID dump with ~30 million entries into a Toolforge database
This contains matches to ~50 other databases (DNB, BNF, SUDOC)
I added the Wikidata item for entries where possible, via matches to these IDs on Wikidata
I am now checking these Wikidata items for some of the 50 databases where there is a Property
I am adding these if they are missing in Wikidata, unless
- the value does not fit the regular expression given in the property, or
- a statement for that property already exists in that item, or
- a statement with that property was removed from that item at some point (irrespective of value), or
- any of the properties checked have a value mismatch for the VIAF set (e.g., WD says DNB is 123 but VIAF set says it's 234, no edit for any property on that item will occur)

I am running batches of 100 items right now for testing. It also adds the date, and "imported from:VIAF" as a reference (or rather, for source tracking). Please let me know if there are issues, before I make this larger batches, or a continuous service.

Also, I am internally logging any issues the bot encounters, and may present those through an interface at a later date, for manual fine-tuning. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice!

Unless "a statement with that property was removed from that item at some point" seems useful as some other bot re-imports the same again.

Some clusters include DNB ids for their disambiguations, but possible you already filter them out.

In the past, people got annoyed when VIAF for locations were imported (e.g. to the many Dutch streets). Maybe you want to focus on items for people only.

It's not entirely clear if ISNI adds much value. In the past, we also had to disable imports for some other property (which added 100s of identifiers to items). You probably want to skip these as well.

It's seems that I encounter people with several VIAF regularly, but maybe we should let VIAF engines sort them out before importing them automatically.

Once done, maybe items for remaining VIAF with several components, but without any conflicts could be created. If you import all film festivals, I would merge any duplicates.
--- Jura 14:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jura! I am now excluding non-human (not P31:Q5) items, as well as those with multiple VIAF values. I am not sure how to tell apart the "type n" DNBs just from the ID; will the GND ID (P227) regex filter take care of that? Or is there another way? --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

As for ISNI, my data structure has (max) one ISNI for one VIAF, so I'll import that for now. I can turn it off easily if it's important, though. --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:KasparBot/GND_Type_N has a list with some samples. In the VIAF webinterface, they are marked with "undifferentiated". As it's not really clear to me how ISNI are maintained, personally, I'd omit them. As they come from the same source, it's unlikely they add much.
--- Jura 17:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now made my own GND blacklist, seeded from KasparBot, and the bot will check every GND that's not on that list with the GND website before adding it. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Magnus I am a big fan of continued work on improving identifier coverage. We had a lot of big bot runs in the past, but many of them slowed down after the initial push.

about ISNI, the ISNI page has very little information, but many other identifiers lists them so they are useful for matching records
you use imported from (P143) Virtual International Authority File (Q54919) in your references, which is a constraint violation as imported from (P143)'s instance of (P31) is limited to communication medium (Q340169) and Virtual International Authority File (Q54919) is not. I have observed that imported from (P143) is used mostly for Wikipedia projects and we use stated in (P248) for authority control identifiers. If I got this wrong can someone correct me?
I would prefer to also have VIAF ID (P214) in the source so we know which VIAF record the information come from, in case we will have more VIAF links

Magnus, by the way last month Help:QuickStatements was created. Could you look over it and verify we got it right and point us in the right direction if we missed something. --Jarekt (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jarekt! I changed P143 to P248, and add the VIAF ID to the reference (unless the property if VIAF, in which case it's redundant). Example edit. --Magnus Manske (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Little information just makes it more likely that it's incorrect. I might be mistaken, but it seems it collects labels from incorrect past matches. With all the others, people should have better ways to match.
--- Jura 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Jura, I don't know what you mean by this. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Jarekt wrote that ISNI only includes little information. We can't verify if the link is about the correct person. It seems to be that when ISNI gets re-clustered in VIAF, VIAF labels from other people remain in the ISNI file. If there is a good description of their algorithms, I'd be interested. In any case, it's not as transparent as VIAF. As you add other identifiers, user might be better served by these.
--- Jura 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have deactivated adding ISNI for now. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

When adding identifiers derived from VIAF, may I suggest to add the VIAF ID used as part of the reference? (Not just "imported from VIAF".) And similarly, if a VIAF id is deduced from another id (say, an ISNI), add the ISNI as reference to the VIAF claim? I think it would be really nice to encourage this practice as it makes life a lot easier when trying to understand how an item was built. We have had this discussion with ArthurPSmith and Mike Peel recently. − Pintoch (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

As was already suggested, I am now adding the VIAF ID into the reference, unless the property I add is VIAF itself. I have matched the VIAF IDs in my database to Wikidata via their own Wikidata mapping, via VIAF IDs on Wikidata, and then via a few other IDs (though I did not record which for each case), unless the VIAF was already matched to Wikidata. I believe the "collision avoidance" on ID values, as described above, should limit the issue considerably. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Example where the bot added a VIAF ID, in this case VIAF had already matched their entry to Wikidata, but we didn't have the "backlink"! --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Magnus Manske: maybe more identifiers have "undifferentiated" as annotation (occasionally, I come across some from LOC), some others have "sparse". Probably none of these should be imported. Hope my explanation on ISNI was convincing. BTW, my offer for film festivals still stands. ;)
--- Jura 06:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to links to sources, VIAF and Wikidata are very much alike in that they bring together the links of many other sources. For one person there should be one identifier in either. However, it happens that the same person has multiple identifiers and this is reason for a merge. This happen in both VIAF and Wikidata. Wikidata is one of the sources in VIAF. When we find duplicates in VIAF, we can identify both. In the future these two will be merged. We do not need to keep a link to the redirect, there is no value in it. All the links at VIAF for people are relevant because all of them link to libraries in one part of the world. ISNI is indeed a product of the OCLC but it is not about authors but about people. They too should include only one link to one person but for some time double entries may exist and will eventually be merged. Adding both to Wikidata helps this process but once one becomes a redirect, it can be removed from Wikidata.

The point is that both VIAF and Wikidata represent a process. Our work strengthens what is done at OCLC. This is a two way process so lets import as much as we can and link to all the libraries in the world. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"We do not need to keep a link to the redirect, there is no value in it. " The opposite is true. If third party has the old, redirected VIAF identifier in their database, they should be able to use that when querying Wikidata, to find the matching item. That is the very reason we have withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764) avaialble as a qualifier for reason for deprecation (P2241). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

When people have a VIAF identifier and it does not match our, they can query VIAF and get an updated identifier. Our purpose is not to keep old old identifiers around. As to the fact that there is a property for this.. Not impressed, there are many properties that have little value and are hard if not impossible to maintain. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll set this to run continuously now, so the entire 30M set (as far as it is matched to Wikidata) will be processed, in time. Let me know if there are things to change/fix. --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't the Wikidata Tours work?[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T178224

Hi

Can someone tell me what the technical issue with the Wikidata:Tours are that stop them working? I'd really like to help create new tours. Looking at the talk page it seems that its been a problem for a few years. Looking at the talk page it is not clear what the issue is, there seems to be a Phabricator ticket that was opened and then closed again (T85719) but its still broken (or broken again).

To me this seems like a major barrier to people learning how to contribute to Wikidata.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Filled phab:T178224. Still, I wonder why a ticket from 2015 would be relevant for the current issue. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin:, thanks very much. --John Cummings (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem appears to have been caused by overlays, unfortunately disabling the overlays has caused other issues making the Statements tour malfunction. If anyone could help with fixing this it would be greatly appreciated. --John Cummings (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any issue with the statements tour. Can you try to describe in which step of the tour you are encountering problems? --Pasleim (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pasleim:, sorry for not being specific enough, when I start the Statement Tour, the 3rd pop up which starts All item pages have a Statements section which can include..... has a problem. It appears in the correct part of the page but the page does not jump to the right section so it appears as though the tour has just stopped. interestingly if you scroll down the screen it seems to 'unstick' the scrolling of the screen and will jump up and down the page fine. You may not be able to see it if you have a very high resolution screen. --John Cummings (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of descendants[edit]

At WikiProject Genealogy/numbers/descendants, I added a few counts of the number of descendants. It does one count per query to ensure that it keeps getting updated weekly. We can add more people, but preferably not Charlemagne's children.
--- Jura 19:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

operator (P137) for embassies[edit]

Until recently, the English description of operator (P137) stated: "person or organization that operates the equipment, facility, or service". Given this long-standing description, and the most recent relevant suggestion on the property talk page, and the guidance on Wikidata:WikiProject International relations that operator (P137) should be an instance of either organization (Q43229) or sovereign state (Q3624078), I think any of the following is valid:

< Embassy of the United States to the Holy See (Q5369978)  > operator (P137) < United States of America (Q30)  >
< Embassy of the United States to the Holy See (Q5369978)  > operator (P137) < Federal Government of the United States (Q48525)  >
< Embassy of the United States to the Holy See (Q5369978)  > operator (P137) < United States Department of State (Q789915)  >
< Embassy of the United States to the Holy See (Q5369978)  > operator (P137) < Office of Foreign Missions (Q7079230)  >

But similar to how we prefer to be as specific as possible for other properties, like located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), I think we should prefer the last statement above. If one really wants to determine the sending country of an embassy or consulate, then it's a simple matter to get the country (P17) of the item specified by operator (P137). Does anybody have any comments, objections, or suggestions? —seav (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion about where to add the sending country in the past (P17 or elsewhere) and people came up with P137. Somehow this hadn't find it's way into the property description. Most items on Wikidata_talk:Wikivoyage/Lists/Embassies use that. For some statistics, see Wikidata:Wikivoyage/Lists/Embassies/count by country
--- Jura 19:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Here's a list of links to previous discussions here in Project chat in chronological order: Feb 2016, May 2016, June 2016, July 2016, August 2016, September 2016, October 2016. Looking at these discussions, while there was a rough agreement that we use country (P17) to the country hosting the embassy, there were also suggestions to use owned by (P127) or allegiance (P945) instead of operator (P137) for the sending country. There are also suggestions that operator (P137) be used to indicate the government or government agency to be more specific instead of just the country (like it was suggested for military bases on foreign soil). So I don't think the usage of operator (P137) to refer to the sending country is a decision based on consensus but rather based on fait accompli. And these discussions were only started last year. Furthermore, not being able to indicate which ministry, agency, or department actually operates these embassies (it's certainly possible that not all embassies sent by a country is operated by just a single government organization) means we can't represent that information in Wikidata using the entirely appropriate operator (P137) property. This defect is a situation that can be improved in a simple manner: either use another property or extract the country from the item stated in the operator (P137) property. —seav (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  - I don't think P137 is necessarily the best choice, but it might be the optimal one: I think the country should be indicated on the item in one way or the other. If you want to use another property than P137, I don't mind. Once implemented, please ping me and I will update the queries.
    --- Jura 06:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    - Well, an alternative option to using operator (P137) for the agency that operates embassies is parent organization (P749). I'm not sure which between the two is semantically/ontologically better to represent this relation between a government agency and an embassy. I agree though that specifying the sending country directly on the item is warranted because that is how most people look at embassies—as an institution between two sovereign states. —seav (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with seav that operator (P137) should have for value Office of Foreign Missions (Q7079230), because it is the lowest-level agency that operates the embassy. Anyone wanting to know what country this agency belongs to has a simple way to ask for it in SPARQL. I am guilty of assigning countries as operator (P137) values, in hundreds of cases, because I am too lazy too figure out what Zimbabwean agency is responsible for running Zimbabwe's embassies, but anyone familiar with Zimbabwe is warmly encouraged to change operator (P137) to the lowest-level appropriate agency that exists on Wikidata. Cheers and thanks for caring :-) Syced (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

seav: Are you sure that Office of Foreign Missions (Q7079230) operates the US embassies and consulates? From reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that it checks/regulates/educates but it seems that it does not operate them, meaning that it does not give them goals nor funds. So maybe United States Department of State (Q789915) is the best item to specify as an operator? Syced (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Importing GNIS data[edit]

For US locations, does anyone have a bot for importing and referencing "feature" (= instance of), county, state, country, and coordinates based on the GNIS ID? Adding all of these items by hand is tedious (and I've been doing a lot of them). Here's an example: Spike Island (Q41983719). - PKM (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I use wikidata to link to wikipedia via ICD10 code?[edit]

I am setting up a mediawiki to document a database that uses a subset of ICD10. I would like to link to en.wikipedia articles using the code, since actual diagnosis names on our side aren't necessarily consistent with the standard. So is there a way to build a link knowing that a disease has an ICD-10-CM (P4229) of <something>? For example, I would know that appendicitis Q121041 has an ICD-10-CM (P4229) of K37. Appendicitis Q121041 also has a corresponding en.wikipedia article. Can I generate a URL that will use wikidata to send me to the wikipedia article? Thanks! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenbergen (talk • contribs) at 15. 10. 2017, 15:29‎ (UTC).

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You can get to the Wikidata item by using Resolver; for example:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/resolver.php?prop=P4229&value=K37

Maybe User:Magnus_Manske can kindly add a switch to force the use of a given Wiki as the target? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Pigsontheswing, this set me off in the right direction. I had a look at the page in debugger and found that the following will send me to the corresponding en.wikipedia article:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/resolver.php?prop=P4229&value=K37&project=enwiki

-- – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.44.83 (talk • contribs) at 22:55, 15 October 2017‎ (UTC).

UEFA ranking[edit]

Wikidata:Property proposal/UEFA ranking

Hello. The above proposal is going to be rejected. A user have proposed another way to add the data. I am fine with it but there are 2 problems. Please read the discussion and say your opinion there. I have the data ready and I want to add it to Wikidata. But I need a secure way how to do that. According to the discussion, no new property is needed, so I need your opinion how to use the properties we already have. Xaris333 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Xaris333 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Examples

Country coefficient (men football)

Royal Spanish Football Federation (Q207615)

   ranking (P1352) - 1
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 89.212

Country coefficient (women football)

Royal Spanish Football Federation (Q207615)

   ranking (P1352) - 6
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 41.000

Club coefficient

Real Madrid FC (Q8682)

   ranking (P1352) - 1
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 134.00

National team coefficient

Germany national football team (Q43310)

   ranking (P1352) - 1
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 40.236

2 problems:

1) A problem is the country ranking. These rankings are for the countries member of UEFA. The football associations. But, nowadays there are male and female ranking. The association items are the same for both cases. We need a way to show that in the items.

2) The second problem is that we need to link to someway to UEFA coefficient (Q491781) or UEFA coefficient (women) (Q2981732) for all cases.

Xaris333 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: How about adding determination method (P459) as qualifier pointing to UEFA coefficient (women) (Q2981732) etc.? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: Good idea. And for men determination method (P459) as qualifier pointing to UEFA coefficient (Q491781). Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: Please check how I add it to England national football team (Q47762). A lot of issues... Xaris333 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I see it breaks a lot of the constraints set on ranking (P1352). Perhaps a new property would be a good idea? @Vladimir Alexiev: what do you think should be done here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Wikivoyage listings[edit]

In terms of notability, does a place having a listing on Wikivoyage by itself warrant its own Wikidata entry? ~★ nmaia ^d 15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability ChristianKl (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@NMaia: What do you mean by "a listing on Wikivoyage"? A page, or an entry in a list on a page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

An entry, like a restaurant, for instance. ~★ nmaia ^d 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but tracking them at Wikidata isn't optimal yet. Initially, you might want to focus on listings for

   Get in
   Get around
   See
   Do
   Learn
   Sleep

And later only:

   Buy
   Eat
   Drink

Tracking use of items in listings at Wikivoyage (en/fr) is already done.
--- Jura 16:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. How is the tracking done? ~★ nmaia ^d 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Currently the listings read the labels only. For a list used in an article, see https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Aarhus&action=info#mw-wikibase-pageinfo-entity-usage

This includes Q1138832 currently which has enwikivoyage in "Wikis subscribed to this entity" at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1138832&action=info clicking it gets you to https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:EntityUsage/Q1138832
--- Jura 17:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, thanks. So, to be clear, I can create Wikidata entries for individual listings within Wikivoyage articles, correct? ~★ nmaia ^d 19:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. They are fulfilling notability rules 2 and 3. It is useful to use Wikidata entries after their creation in the articles, for instance in a listing template. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

pywikibot - setting rank to "preferred" using setRank() or changeRank()[edit]

Hi Project chat,

first of all: if this is the wrong place to ask, please let me know.

I am currently writing a bot based on python3/pywikibot(latest version) and running into an issue when trying to set the rank of a given claim (in my case I want to set the latest value to "preferred") which I could not resolve so far - maybe someone here has an idea.

I checked the API doc of pywikibot (https://doc.wikimedia.org/pywikibot/api_ref/pywikibot.html) and found two approaches, namely

setRank(rank)

and

changeRank(rank)

My first appraoch is to set the rank of the claim before adding it to the item

claim = pywikibot.Claim(repo, _ALEXA_RANKING_PROPERTY_IDENTIFIER)
target = pywikibot.WbQuantity(alexa_ranking,site=site)	
claim.setTarget(target)
claim.setRank("preferred")
item.addClaim(alexa_ranking_claim, summary=u'Updating Alexa ranking')

While the claim itselfs gets added and shows up on the respective Wikidata Object page the desired rank of "preferred" is not taken into account, instead the "normal" (I guess the default or fallback) rank is shown.

My second approach is to change the rank of the claim after it has been added to the item, using

changeRank("preferred")

item.addClaim(alexa_ranking_claim, summary=u'Updating Alexa ranking')
alexa_ranking_claim.changeRank("preferred")

This way the claim itself gets added, however the call to

changeRank()

results in an Exception with an empty Excpetion message

print(exception) -> ""

I am running out of ideas and therefore would like to ask you if you have a hint where my error is or how to set the rank of a certain claim to "preferred". Thanks for your input and help! --Tozibb (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The first approach doesn't work because niether the API module wbcreateclaim can work with them (it's question whether this should be implemented).

I tried the second approach and it worked, so there may be a mistake in your code. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(Continued at Topic:U04qxj2j9t1o3oay.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2017 (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. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

German Business Registry, Handelsregister[edit]

Hi all, I created a bot request here: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Handelsregister The main goals are:

add data from the German business registry to existing wikidata items
if 1 is done sufficiently, then discuss whether to include the rest with new identifiers

I was asked on the list to move the discussion to this wiki. So let's discuss on the Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Handelsregister bot page. SebastianHellmann (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Gendergap[edit]

I am thinking of creating a WikiProject to consolidate some discussions about how to track and monitor items about women and their works. Is anyone interested in helping out? I am thinking listing queries that can be tailored per language or country and listing the basic statements desired for Q5 items as well as discussing female-specific occupations such as "queen consort", the "female form of label" for occupations, and also the various ways to link women to their various notable works. Suggestions for a project name are welcome too. Jane023 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. I/we would love to collaborate. WikiProject Bridging Gender Gap might be the project name. --Titodutta (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there already is Wikidata:WikiProject_Las_Imprescindibles, which was inspired by spanish-speaking women in Mexico last summer. Coordination of all women projects would be nice :)

Notified participants of WikiProject Las Imprescindibles --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC) OK great. I don't like "Gender Gap" by the way, because it implies "Gender Pay Gap" in English, and this has nothing to do with that, but more about the lack of female editors and thus indirectly, a lack of content for, by and related to women. I always try to use "Gendergap" because that is the name of the Wikimedia mailing list and anchors the subject better. I understand though that people might object to something they see as a spelling mistake (which it isn't). I think I will just call it WikiProject Women for now, as a short form of "Women in Red" because this is not about red links in the sense of missing items, but more about describing the items we already have. People often talk about the "gender binary" as if both sides are equal, which they definitely aren't on Wikimedia projects. Jane023 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

See here for now: Wikidata:WikiProject Women. Jane023 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Entirely for an initiative like this one. Seeing the Wikidata:WikiProject Women, I'm thinking that it would be amazing to get people to start contributing to Wikidata with a wikidata game-like app! ' Exilexi (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes my gut feeling is that there is a lot of item improvement that can be done in a Wikidata-game like way, but I honestly have no idea how to set it up. Just by creating these lists I am hoping it might help attract a few contributions. Jane023 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

WordPress plugin to associate tags with Wikidata IDs: opinions sought[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T138371

Work is underway on a WordPress plugin to associate a blog's tags/ categories with Wikidata items. How should this work? Please comment on Phabricator (preferred) or here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Q24702432[edit]

Who is Q24702432? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott: please check this; which you created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to create this item. I don't know how it came about. It should be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #282[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #282

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

Discussions
- New request for comments: Association Football Matches
Events/Blogs/Press
- Upcoming: WikidataCon, Berlin, 28-29 October (sold out)
- If you organize a local event for the Wikidata birthday, feel free to add it on the events page and the birthday page
- A blog post describing Textes d'affiches, a tool using Wikidata to show movies and the works they are adapted from, developed during a hackathon at the national French library (by Shonagon, in French)
- Slides of the presentation "Wikidata Query Service: The State of the Engine" by Stas Malyshev
- Slides of the presentation "Wikidata and structured data initiatives at Wikimedia. Current trends and priorities" by Dario Taraborelli
- Wikidata as a linking hub for knowledge organization systems? Integrating an authority mapping into Wikidata and learning lessons for KOS mappings by Joachim Neubert
Other Noteworthy Stuff
- If you are interested in Structured Data on Commons, and helping out as a Wikidata contributor, please consider joining the new Structured Commons community focus group!
- Participate to the Global Legislative Openness Week with MySociety and organize a Wikidata workshop in your country, from 20th to 30th November 2017
- Inventaire now has a News section where you can follow ongoing discussions and developments of the project
- wikidata-cli added bot support and new commands (wd search, wd aliases, wd add-alias, wd remove-alias, wd set-alias)
- wikidata-edit added bot edits support and new functions (alias.add, alias.remove, alias.set)
- HarvestTemplates has a new collaboration platform
- You can now use reCh to patrol items from your PagePile
Did you know?
Development
- Continued working on persistently storing edits on Lexeme pages (specifically Forms)
- Dealt with issues caused by too many edits being injected into recent changes on Commons and Russian Wikipedia
- Constraint checks will also be done on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T176863)
- Fixed a regression with the focus not automatically being set after a property was selected (phabricator:T177485)
- Full URIs for external identifiers will soon be in the RDF export (phabricator:T121274)
- The secondary wb_entity_per_page table got removed now (phabricator:T140890)
- The secondary wb_terms table does have a term_full_entity_id column now (phabricator:T167114)
- Released version 4.0.0 of the Wikibase DataModel JavaScript library as a pure NPM package with no MediaWiki dependency (phabricator:T177476)
- Released version 3.0.0 of the Wikibase Serialization JavaScript library as a pure NPM package with no MediaWiki dependency (phabricator:T177613)
- Released version 0.10.0 of the DataValues JavaScript library as a pure NPM package with no MediaWiki dependency (phabricator:T177232)
Monthly Tasks
- Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
- Comment on property proposals: all open proposals
- Suggested and open tasks!
- Contribute to a Showcase item.
- Help translate or proofread the interface and documentation pages, in your own language!
- Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
- Help write the next summary!

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Editorial: Annotations

Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?

1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century

ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.

As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine requires special attention to sourcing (w:WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.

Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.

An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.

Links[edit]

Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add w:Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

For Wikidatans, the invitation at the end of the editorial can be repeated: please come to Wikidata talk:WikiFactMine/Annotation for fact mining and help us clarify and improve our project ideas. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

ID property issue because of URL structure[edit]

Hi all

There is an issue with theGatehouse Gazetteer place ID (P4141), currently the link to the item doesn't work because the URL sequence is broken. e.g Laugharne Castle (Q911714).

To fix this I just need to change the 'formatter URL' on Gatehouse Gazetteer place ID (P4141) but it looks from the website the sites in England, Wales, and 'the islands' have different URL structures e.g

[http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/Welshsites/835.html http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/Welshsites/835.html
http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/English%20sites/1536.html
[http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/Island%20sites/MontOrgueilCastle.html http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/Island%20sites/MontOrgueilCastle.html

Is there any way to fix this using qualifiers or something?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Currently all values seem to be 1 to 4 digits (except the sample). Maybe a qualifier could be added and this read by the authority control gadget.
--- Jura 09:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1:, thanks but I don't understand how this fixes the issue, all I want to do is make the click throughs work when you click on the ID number on the item, which is governed by the 'formatted URL'. It is very unlikely there will be any new data to import. --John Cummings (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We can have identifiers without formatter urls. If it ceases to work, the formatter url should be set to deprecated rank or, if it never worked, deleted.
--- Jura 09:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, but is it possible to have one 'formatter URL' statement that can have more tahn one URL structure? --John Cummings (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not at the moment, no. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not good news. Well, I suppose this is what happens when identifiers said to be stable turn out not to be. Given over 1000 instances it would not be so great to make the formatter http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/$ and then change the entries. But if the site changes things once, it might do it again.

SPARQL based on located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) could probably figure out which of the locations are in Wales. So there is scope for a spreadsheet-style bit of automation prefixing Welshsites/, for example. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We could use a bot to check for the different possible prefixes, which could update the ID using the prefix that doesn't return a 404 error. Alternatively, maybe split the identifier into three, each with the different prefix. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't really be an external identifier property if the URL keeps changing.
--- Jura 13:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the problem was there from the time of property creation, it is not something new due to a change in their URL's. I fixed the formatter URL though using my wikidata-externalid service at wmflabs, so it works with the original id formats that were in the proposal. I'm not sure this is how the property is actually being used at the moment. There's a property constraint right now that seems to expect a numeric id. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please see my comment above (09:22, 17 October 2017)
  --- Jura 14:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  - Ok, so clearly this property has been entered with incorrect values relative to the plan expressed in the original proposal. @John Cummings: I have fixed Laugharne Castle (Q911714), but the other 1000+ entries will need to be similarly fixed to prefix the numeric id with the correct location string. Also the constraint on the property should be fixed. Note that the numeric ID is NOT sufficient to be an external identifier, because the same number is reused by this site for the different locations (there is both a Welsh and an English site with numeric value 225). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  - Actually it looks like all (?almost?) the sites entered so far are in Wales, so prepending "Welshsites/" to all the ids would fix (most of?) them. @NavinoEvans: can you take a look at this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    - You could try {{Autofix}}.
      --- Jura 16:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: I think you just made the problem discussed above at Wikidata:Project_chat#References_to_wmflabs.3F worse by changing the formatter URL. :-/ Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  - @Mike Peel: then this thread is a good illustration why links to wmflabs should not blindly be considered detrimental.It's the self-citation situation which is detrimental, and such a situation can happen with other domain names (for instance, other databases harvesting wikidata). − Pintoch (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  - @Mike Peel: I really don't think that's a legitimate complaint in any way from the enwiki folks, at least as regard these types of links. It's no more "obscuring" the original URL than archive.org URL's obscure the original - less so in a way since it generates a redirect that any machine can follow to find the actual source. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Words having multiple pages in enwiki[edit]

There are a lots of non-english words which have pages in enwiki, leading to duplicates like nonviolence (Q76611) and Ahimsa (Q178498). How to resolve this issue? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata items are not about words but about concepts. The English page is about the Hindi/Buddhist version of the concept. I don't see any need for resolving anything in this case. ChristianKl (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The English page is about the Hindi/Buddhist version of the concept As is Q178498. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Technical issue[edit]

This project chat page is loaded as expanded in mobile view and it take ages to reach to the desired topic. Can this be loaded in condensed view? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the same problem exists on other project chats. It seems like the behaviour differs from namespace. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Correct property for a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK[edit]

Quick question and sorry if obvious: What is the correct property for Site of Special Scientific Interest (Q422211)? I can find 1932 instances where heritage designation (P1435) has been used and 134 where instance of (P31) has been used. There are 19 instance where both are used. There is also a separate property of Site of Special Scientific Interest (England) ID (P2621) which is also commonly applied, often in addition to the 2 mentioned above. Any advice welcome. Many thanks JerryL2017 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

[OGL 1]

Wikidata:Project chat

Contents

Difference between hamlet and village[edit]

OGL licence for data[edit]

Page to outline the benefits and challenges of using facts from Wikidata on other Wikimedia projects[edit]

Best practices for using Wikidata Properties on a separate site?[edit]

Survey of Scottish Witchcraft Database[edit]

Protecting country names[edit]

wikilinks on wikisource editions through wikidata[edit]

Subtypes of geothermal power stations[edit]

Add a BikeTouring Wiki to Wikidata[edit]

language property[edit]

Need help with a SPARQL query[edit]

Google doodles[edit]

About number of deaths (P1120)[edit]

Data from Wikivoyage[edit]

Is a Wikiproject a valid catalog?[edit]

Instances of humans made additional instance of something else[edit]

member of (P463) and parliamentary terms, which way to fix?[edit]

Is there a page on Wikidata that shows how other Wikimedia projects are using Wikidata?[edit]

Any showcase items or examples for military figures[edit]

Editing an existing article[edit]

Do we need encephalon (Q75865) and brain (Q1073)[edit]

Recent changes[edit]

References to wmflabs?[edit]

American Civil War[edit]

manager/director (P1037)[edit]

Top 10% economists and Top 10% female economists now in Wikidata[edit]

Problems with properties[edit]

Update on creating a list of commonly used proccesses to format data to import it into Wikidata[edit]

Birthday logo update[edit]

Celebrity userpages[edit]

honorary degree: is it an award or an academic degree[edit]

'Stated as' vs. 'author name string'[edit]

Navigation tool (maps, etc.) for navigation by navigator[edit]

Paired and unpaired organs[edit]

Structured Commons focus group - please consider joining![edit]

Idea of a query example[edit]

OTRS-permit[edit]

Generational suffix[edit]

new filters for reCh tool[edit]

VIAF ID sync[edit]

Why don't the Wikidata Tours work?[edit]

Number of descendants[edit]

operator (P137) for embassies[edit]

Importing GNIS data[edit]

Can I use wikidata to link to wikipedia via ICD10 code?[edit]

UEFA ranking[edit]

Notability of Wikivoyage listings[edit]

pywikibot - setting rank to "preferred" using setRank() or changeRank()[edit]

German Business Registry, Handelsregister[edit]

WikiProject Gendergap[edit]

WordPress plugin to associate tags with Wikidata IDs: opinions sought[edit]

Q24702432[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #282[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017[edit]

Links[edit]

ID property issue because of URL structure[edit]

Words having multiple pages in enwiki[edit]

Technical issue[edit]

Correct property for a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK[edit]

Navigation menu

Search