Василиса▶ Я жду вашего обращения. Что Вы хотите узнать?
Логотип
Wikidata:Project chat - Wikidata Shortcuts : WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?Wikidata:Project chatFrom Wikidata
Wikidata project chat
A place to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.

Please use {{ Q }} or {{ P }} the first time you mention an item or property, respectively.
Other places to find help

Afrikaans العربية беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ български Banjar ����� brezhoneg bosanski català کوردی čeština словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ dansk Deutsch Zazaki dolnoserbski Ελληνικά English Esperanto español eesti فارسی suomi føroyskt français Nordfriisk galego Alemannisch ������� עברית ������ hrvatski hornjoserbsce magyar հայերեն Bahasa Indonesia interlingua Ilokano íslenska italiano 日本語 Jawa ქართული қазақша ����� 한국어 kurdî Latina lietuvių latviešu Malagasy Minangkabau македонски ������ ����� Bahasa Melayu Mirandés مازِرونی Nedersaksies ������ Nederlands norsk bokmål norsk nynorsk occitan ����� polski português Runa Simi română русский Scots davvisámegiella srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски ����� Simple English slovenčina slovenščina shqip српски / srpski svenska ślůnski ����� ������ ��� Tagalog Türkçe українська اردو oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча Tiếng Việt Yorùbá 中文 Edit
On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index . The current archive is located at 2021/01 .
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{ Section resolved |1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.
ContentsGender forms of surnames[ edit ]

Is there a fixed rule / policy on Wikidata modelling for surnames, which have different forms for different genders of people? This is a very important issue for Polish names. We've recently had a discussion about it in the main Polish-language Wikimedia related group on Facebook. Most people favoured creation of separate items for all forms and there was also an idea to link those items using gender inflection of surname (P5278) . However, FB discussions in one language are obviously non-binding for Wikidata community, so I want to bring it up here. Powerek38 ( talk ) 17:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

<ping project should not be used in an indented reply> Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Sascha
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
ToJack
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
Moebeus
Dcflyer
Looniverse
Aya Reyad
Infovarius
Tris T7
Klaas van Buiten
Deborahjay
Bruno Biondi
Tokyo Akademia
ZI Jony
Laddo
Da Dapper Don
Data Gamer
Franzsimon
Arturo2R
Luca favorido
The Sir of Data Analytics
Skim
E4024
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Names ChristianKl ❫ 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Happens in many Slavic languages. Example: Stepanova in Russia and Ukraine.  Klaas  `Z4␟`  V :  08:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)FB is free to do whatever they want there. I don't think this is the place to discuss Facebook. --- Jura 12:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @ Jura1 : I'm sorry, but I don't think you've understood what I wrote above. I wrote that wikimedians were discussing this matter using FB and now I am bringing it up here. This has nothing to do with Facebook, apart from the fact that it was used as a convenient forum for initial discussion. Powerek38 ( talk ) 16:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Ok. Wikidata generally doesn't care about FB discussions. Don't some wikis have explicit policies prohibiting offsite discussions? --- Jura 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Please try to be less offensive, Jura . This is really unnecessary. If you have a problem with some user's behavior or some Wikidata policy, please bring it up separately. Vojtěch Dostál ( talk ) 16:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Personally, I find it offensive to conduct policy discussion on another website. Can we know who were the users who participated in this? --- Jura 16:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I think this is really getting absurd, apart from being totally off-topic. Wikimedia, in its various shapes and forms (WMF, projects, chapters, user groups) has had a very strong social media presence for years. There are numerous FB groups for different Wikimedia-related topics. Obviously, no binding decisions are made outside one of wikis, but those informal discussions take place all the time. Our main Facebook group in Polish, which is called simply pl.Wikipedia, is very far from being a secret and it has over 500 members and among its moderators you can find WMPL's Vice President and WMPL's Community Support Officer. And that's just Facebook. The we can talk about Discord with many Wikimedia servers etc. If you really consider it harmful, Jura, it's obviously your right to hold that opinion, but please, don't create any more off-tops out of it. If you fell you need to, initiate, just as Vojtech suggested, a separate discussion, probably on Meta, as it's a movement-wide issue. Powerek38 ( talk ) 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC) It's really a matter you brought up here. If you don't want to address questions about it, don't. If you don't want to participate onwiki, it's unclear why you come here. Redoing onwiki discussions elsewhere doesn't seem very constructive. --- Jura 11:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My view is that -ova feminine forms should only be created as separate items if it is unclear what the masculine version of the surname actually was. This happens in some languages due to grammatic changes in word endings. <ping project should not be used in an indented reply> Tobias1984 Vojtěch Dostál YjM Wesalius Jklamo Walter Klosse Sintakso Matěj Suchánek JAn Dudík Skim Frettie Jura1913 Mormegil Jedudedek marv1N Sapfan Daniel Baránek Draceane

Pictogram voting comment.svg

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Czech Republic as this has been discussed in the Czech community as well and someone may come up with a good example of it happening. Vojtěch Dostál ( talk ) 16:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Good question, Powerek38 . A very important topic for many Slavic languages. I see two possible ways of modelling this. First, have one item per surname and distinguish the gender forms with male form of label (P3321) and female form of label (P2521) . Second, have separate item for each gender variant, connected via gender inflection of surname (P5278) (and I can see now we need a better label in Czech, so it's obvious that this property is symmetric). But most importantly, we should stick to one of these schemes and do not mix them up and make no exceptions. -- YjM  |  d c 17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is both approaches have their upsides and downsides.For the scheme (currently my slight preference) of sharing one item for both the male and female forms, noted using female form of label (P2521) , it is a surname of the father inherited by the daughter / the name of the husband / the name of the sons of the woman; it is also the version used by/for some women internationally (see e.g. Otilie Suková (Q60467588) , with randomly found [1] , [2] , and also “Photo of Josef and Otilie Suk” at en:Josef Suk (composer) ). Basically, both gendered and non-gendered version are the same surname, only in a grammatically differing role. The downside is you cannot distinguish women who normally use the gendered version from the exceptional cases of women using the non-gendered version (e.g. Emma Smetana (Q11878748) ); also, other languages would always reconstruct the non-gendered version using given name (P735) + family name (P734) (e.g. in English, Petra Kvitová (Q30812) would get Petra (Q740790) + Kvita (Q62740665) ).On the other hand, the separate-items scheme is basically the reverse: The name of the person is trivially composable with the proper version of the surname already set, but you cannot determine what is the “family name” of the woman, i.e. what was her father named / what is her husband’s name / what is her son’s name. And please note gender inflection of surname (P5278) does not really help with that: There are many surnames which share the gendered version, so the item for the gendered version will have multiple P5278 claims (e.g. Blažková (Q43371396) : Blažková might be a daughter of Blažek, Blažke, Blažka, Blažko…). On the other third hand, there are even exceptional cases where there are multiple female versions of a single male surname, depending on the family tradition (e.g. for Jirků (Q50308708) , the normal female version is identical, Jirků, however, there are women who use Jirkůová). And, this also means the shared-item scheme has a similar drawback for less known persons: you might have an item about e.g. “Jarmila Blažková”, but without other information, you just don’t know if the family name is Blažek, Blažko, etc.And… to be honest… the choice depends on the use cases for the properties, which I’m not really sure what they are.-- Mormegil ( talk ) 09:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Another problem with the first model is, that there are (and will be) trigger-happy bots on hunt for people without surname statement. They won't care about verifiable sources and will fill in the missing piece of information using random choice, or maybe some “heuristical” method: e.g., they will add a family name (P734) Suk (Q20998030) statement for any unspecified Ms Suková, claiming that “Suk” is certainly more common surname than “Suka”. Some of them may even check this assumption in statistics but better don't count on it.The second scheme is less prone to this kind of corruption since the bot (or even the human editor) is not forced to lie about knowing the male form while adding a surname statement to a woman's item. But as you pointed, the missing link to the male form will be still percieved as a problem and sooner or later somebody will introduce some way to fill it in (via a qualifier, maybe). And then we have the aforementioned army of trigger-happy bots here again. In this case though, it wouldn't be an intrinsic problem of the data model, it's just that people expect Wikidata to content even data that are not available in the real world.-- Shlomo ( talk ) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Oh, don’t be that optimistic about trigger-happy bots, they are happy to say such things like Zuzana Dobiašová (Q81902636) given name (P735) Žužana (Q12808063) , nothing will stop them in any model.I don’t have a real solution. The most thorough solution would be to have multiple instances of “Blažková”, each with a different value of gender inflection of surname (P5278) . Plus possibly one more with unknown value there for those people we just don’t know. That would be a “correct” model, IMHO, but it is a lot of work with doubtful benefit. I guess I was primarily just objecting to the “we should stick to one of these schemes and do not mix them up and make no exceptions” statement which took quite a simplistic view of the reality…-- Mormegil ( talk ) 09:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Good points, @ Mormegil :. I would only object that every model is a simplification of reality :-) Do you perceive the implication of your statement "There are many surnames which share the gendered version, so the item for the gendered version will have multiple gender inflection of surname (P5278) claims"(added {{P}}) as problematic? -- YjM  |  d c 23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Similar to @ Mormegil :, I also have a slight preference for the "item sharing" model. When necessary, these could be supplemented by qualifiers - eg. Emma Smetana (Q11878748) - family name (P734) : Smetana (Q12192297) , named as (P1810) : "Smetana" (string). Maybe named as (P1810) is not the best match, but I guess the essence of my solution is understandable. In cases where we cannot determine the real family name (such as many cases of Blažková (Q43371396) ), we can just leave it out until the name of this woman's father or other male relatives is determined (and ideally sourced using inferred from (P3452) ). Also @ Jklamo , Shlomo , YjM , Powerek38 : if we could find agreement on something like that. Vojtěch Dostál ( talk ) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Polish is the only Slavic language, which I know, but my worry is that at least in Polish many of those "real family names" would be in fact male forms, which are often considered to be the "basic" ones. This can might be quite problematic, because in the last few years that has been a general trend in Poland (especially in more progressive circles) to use female forms of nouns as much as possible, when talking about women. This is seen as part of the broader social effort to stress gender equality. There are even many new forms introduced to the language. For example, when I was studying political science 15 years ago, it was obvious that our future profession was called "politolog" (male form of political scientist), regardless of gender. Now we use more and more also the female form "politolożka". What I'm trying to say is that using male forms as basic and female forms as variants could be quite difficult to accept for many members of our community. Powerek38 ( talk ) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC) That's a legitimate concern, Powerek38 , but my view is that equal treatment of men and women is actually guaranteed by the usage of one common item for all gender variants. The proposed solution recognizes that people belonging to one family have one common family name and the precise gender form is not so important. Input from other members of your community is welcome, of course. Vojtěch Dostál ( talk ) 17:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)I slightly prefer separate-items scheme, as we for the given names we also have separate items for each variant of the name, even with very little difference (like a different diacritical mark over only one letter). I was a bit skeptical about this given names solution, but over time I like it much more.-- Jklamo ( talk ) 20:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Best way to deal with link rot on "Official Website"[ edit ]Solved with Template Infobox OS website parameter special value hide

Hi,

What is the best way to deal with an official website URL (P856) Property_talk:P856 , which is now invalid?

The item in question is https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2665351&oldid=733581269

Happily, archive.org got some snapshots of the URL, including:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080506045212/http://www.nec.de/hpc/software/super-ux/index.html

This is the last valid archive for the URL.

For the now invalid valid, should any of the following be set?

earliest end date (P8554) latest start date (P8555)earliest date (P1319)latest date (P1326)

Also the URL appears to have been invalid when imported into Wikidata on 14 March 2017 from the Russian Wikipedia, see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2665351&oldid=466252341

Does this alter the qualifier properties that should ideally be set?

The Wikidata information is used by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_OS of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SUPER-UX&oldid=999525330 .

Thanks! -- Lent ( talk ) 06:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

end time (P582) would be the appropriate qualifier to indicate that the official website is no longer valid. If the date is not known, the special unknown value can be used. Maybe @ PKM : wants to explain the others [3] . --- Jura 13:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC) As the end time (P582) seems to take an inclusive value, I think taking 2008-05-06T045212 (UTC) and adding that as the end time (P582) qualifier to the existing official website (P856) property would make sense. So the value entered is best as 6 May 2008, precision day, calendar Gregorian right? This is the last available date/time for a GOOD archive of the original URL. The value is from the archive.org URL version of the webpage referenced by the URL, shown at : https://web.archive.org/web/20080506045212/http://www.nec.de/hpc/software/super-ux/index.html .Where is the a place to put the source of the information, that is the archive.org URL? Does that go in the update Summary? or is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P854 OK, I think I did it reasonably. Added an end time (P582) of 6 May 2008, a reference URL (P854) of https://web.archive.org/web/20080506045212/http://www.nec.de/hpc/software/super-ux/index.html with a retrieved (P813) of 15 January 2021. Anything I should still do, or should have done? See: SUPER-UX (Q2665351) . Thanks! -- Lent ( talk ) 06:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Solved with Template Infobox OS website parameter special value hide ✓

✓  Done Lent ( talk ) 03:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Fighting link rot[ edit ]

We have lots of link rot on wikidata. I think it would make sense to periodically try to hit those URLs and make sure they at least still resolve and don't return an error. The issue is what would we do with this information? Problems:

A link being dead now doesn't mean it won't be alive later (intermittent failure)Links can be live but no longer related to the itemWe shouldn't add end time (P582) unless we are relatively sure it's permanently dead

I'm thinking we could add a new qualifier indicating that a link failed at some point. Then we could wait for say three failures across a few months before marking it with something like end time (P582) . Does this seem reasonable or are there better ideas for dealing with link rot. I'm imagining such a bot could also ensure the link is archived for when it does go dead (I think enwiki has efforts in that direction). BrokenSegue ( talk ) 17:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

All URLs used on wikidata are archived on the Wayback Machine, according to its keeper . -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 20:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC) @ Tagishsimon : hm, do you have information on how that works? links for external identifiers are not being backed up reliably and it would good if they were. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Don't know. Have asked . -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Links on external-ids are being generated in the web UI by javascript, I think. They are not written down hardcoded anywhere, including the externallinks table . I'm pretty sure they only look at what's in that table. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Answer I get back is: " yes ". -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 00:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks. I'm still sure "no" is what actually happens, based on how these links are being generated and the observation that plenty of identifiers, added at various periods of time to Wikidata, are not archived by the Internet Archive. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I'm also pretty sure identifiers links are currently not archived. That's why I made a proposal at Community Wishlist Survey which ends in the top ten and should be implemented this year. Ayack ( talk ) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Internet Archive uses EventStream, not SQL tables. See http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/01/more-than-9-million-broken-links-on-wikipedia-are-now-rescued/ -- Snaevar ( talk ) 00:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The last time I looked into the issue, there are a few tens of thousands of links on Wikidata that got backuped by the bot from the Wayback machine but the amount of those is relatively small. ChristianKl ❫ 08:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)@ Snaevar : looking at the stream entries when I edit an item I'm not seeing the property's URL. Is there a link to the code that does this? Is it owned by the archive or wikimedia? BrokenSegue ( talk ) 00:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC) And looking at some of my few day old edits to properties I'm not seeing them in the waybackmachine archive (though I have no idea how long it would take to show up). BrokenSegue ( talk ) 00:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)What other ways might these types of URLs be detectable by automated processes? -- GreenC ( talk ) 15:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @ GreenC : not sure what you mean? what type of URLs? non-archived ones? BrokenSegue ( talk ) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ BrokenSegue : Yes, Internet Archive monitors Events Streams API. When it sees (via Events Stream) a new URL was just added somewhere on a WMF project, it triggers this URL to be saved at the Wayback Machine. In this way, every (or most) URLs added to a WMF site also have an archive available (on the Wayback Machine). If the links discussed above are not visible via Events Stream, what other way could Internet Archive monitor for their addition on Wikidata, such that they can automatically be saved into the Wayback Machine? -- GreenC ( talk ) 14:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ GreenC : They could periodically pull the list of external id properties, look for additions of them and automatically fetch the URL using the associated formatter URL. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC) (BTW I work for IA but not directly on this project). How do you pull the list of external id properties? Any more detailed information would help. -- GreenC ( talk ) 14:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Sounds like something that would need a custom export possibly built on what is available for WQS replication or Wikipedia updates. Wikidata:Contact the development team might help. --- Jura 15:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Sovereign states, not countries[ edit ]

What a constantly changing list... Now we have additional hundred of them: https://w.wiki/uxM . More work of adding heads and prime-ministers and ambassies... -- Infovarius ( talk ) 22:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

GIGO. Native American tribe in the United States (Q7840353) does not fit the definition of a sovereign state, which according to en wiki is: "International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state." So removing that from the SS class tree ( diff ) will probably sort out the issue, until some bright spark re-adds it. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Federally recognized Indian tribes do fit that definition completely. They have a permanent population, defined territory (they are geographical entities in the Library of Congress name authority files), they have their own government that is sovereign over that territory, and they have the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign state (they have treaties between their government and the government of the United States and some other countries as well). All four of these criteria are discussed in this article: Sovereignty and Self-Determination: The Rights of Native Americans under International Law. Buffalo Law Review, volume 27, no. 4 (1978), pages 669-714. See pages at 673-679 at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236350558.pdf . From page 712: "Supreme Court decisions repeatedly refer to Indian tribes as semi-sovereign states, recognizing at least a degree of their independence, and therefore debunking the theory that Indians are merely a part of the United States." Ultimately, these tribes are (dependent) sovereign states. That makes including them in Wikidata as subclass of sovereign state completely correct.

If you look at the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, among other controlled vocabularies, you see that the term tribal nations is a subclass of the term sovereign states ( http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300403959 ):

................ political administrative bodies
.................... <political administrative bodies by degree of independence>
........................ sovereign states
............................ nations
................................ tribal nations

Incidentally, countries in the AAT are also a subclass of sovereign states, that is, they are not the same thing as sovereign states: http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300387506

........................ <political administrative bodies by degree of independence>
............................ sovereign states
................................ city-states
.................................... altepemeh
................................ countries (sovereign states)
................................ empires (sovereign states)
................................ nations
.................................... developing countries
.................................... island nations
.................................... republics
.................................... tribal nations
................................ polities
................................ suzerains (states)

See also additional information that I posted on the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe talk page: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q141646 UWashPrincipalCataloger ( talk ) 02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@ UWashPrincipalCataloger : A better link for the hierarchy is http://vocab.getty.edu/hier/aat/300387506 --00:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)That may or may not be a good way of arranging entries in a thesaurus. Wikidata is not a thesaurus. As you note, TNs are not the same thing as sovereign states. As you note, they are (dependent) sovereign states. (which != sovereign states). As you note, the expressed legal position is "Supreme Court decisions repeatedly refer to Indian tribes as semi-sovereign states". (which != sovereign states)In set theory terms, the definition for a subclass is: given classes A and B, A is a subclass of B if and only if every member of A is also a member of B. Self evidently semi / dependant / not-the-same-thing things of type A are not members of class B b/c they lack attributes required for membership of B.My understanding of subclasses in Wikidata is that they are bound by the above definiton and share entirely the characteristics of their superclass (and can be differentiated from the superclass by some other measures). Semi / dependant / not-the-same-thing things do not share entirely the characteristics of their superclass. If we accept Getty , then countries like England, Wales, are sovereign states b/c country is a subclass of sovereign state. England is not a sovereign state. Wales is not a sovereign state. Wikidata is not a thesaurus.The State class tree would be more useful if along the lines of:State Sovereign StateSemi-Sovereign StateCountrythanState Sovereign State Semi-Sovereign State Countryb/c the first reflects the differences between the three state subclasses and respects basic set theory, and the second suggests, wholly incorrectly, that Semi-Sovereign States and Countries have the characteristics of Sovereign States. I don't know what the goals of a thesaurus cataloger are, but it seems not to be the same as a wikidata ontologist. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)And for the avoidance of doubt, the "more useful if along the lines of" example, above, is drawn on the fly to illustrate issues with the AAT/Getty thesaurus hierarchies, rather than as properly analysed proposals for wikidata's future. The main point it seeks to make is that Sovereign States and Semi-Sovereign States are two distinct things, both members of a common superclass. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 19:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)I've changed Native American tribe in the United States (Q7840353) to be a subclass of state (Q7275) . This is set theory 101. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 00:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Might be better querying that way, with some rules to "clean" data. (wonder why Q104906060 still appears in the results)SELECTdistinct?item?itemLabelWHERE{?itemwdt:P31/wdt:P279*wd:Q3624078.SERVICEwikibase:label{bd:serviceParamwikibase:language"[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en".}MINUS{?itemwdt:P576[].}MINUS{?itemwdt:P31/wdt:P279*?without.VALUES?without{wd:Q133311# tribeswd:Q13417114# houses}}} Try it! Bouzinac ���� ✒️ ���� 08:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Parent organization versus part of[ edit ]

I found that more organizations use part of (P361) than parent organization (P749) :

SELECT(COUNT(DISTINCT?item)AS?count)WHERE{?itemwdt:P31/wdt:P279*wd:Q43229;wdt:P361[].} Try it!

Try it! gives 134,808 items, while

SELECT(COUNT(DISTINCT?item)AS?count)WHERE{?itemwdt:P31/wdt:P279*wd:Q43229;wdt:P749[].} Try it!

Try it! gives only 97,790. I think that parent organization (P749) is a subproperty of part of (P361) , and all usages such that (some organization) part of (P361) (some other organization) should be converted to use parent organization (P749) (and similar has part (P527) statements to subsidiary (P355) ). I’m a bit afraid of asking bot owners to change over a hundred thousand items (although the above figures are somewhat overestimated, as I didn’t check whether the object is an organization—the queries almost timed out even in this simple version), so I welcome any input and ideas about how to deal with these four properties. — Tacsipacsi ( talk ) 22:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What is a "parent organization"? Can you complete the description of the property? Currently it's defined as the opposite of a "subsidiary". Supposedly P749 can only apply to some organizations. --- Jura 23:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)There is, as Jura alludes to, a definitional problem. And then, whereas I don't doubt that there are many relations using part of which should use parent, just because both are organisations does not make it a slam-dunk that parent is the more appropriate. Most of my work at the moment is on UK government organisations, very broadly defined. Very many of these use part of (e.g. NHS Trusts are part of the NHS) and it would be inappropriate to use parent (b/c each organisation is autonomous, albeit constrained by its establishing primary & secondary legislation, so the NHS is not the parent organisation of a Trust). You are, thus, right to be afraid of asking bot owners to change over a hundred thousand items, because it would be a really really really bad idea to undertake such an exercise blind and without analysis and appreciation of context. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 23:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC) It's not clear to me that parent organization (P749) can't be used, if an organization is part of another, or owned by another, even if it's more or less autonomous. Ghouston ( talk ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC) It's as simple as, an organisation can be part of some other organisation without that somthing being a parent. And in such cases, using parent/subsid rather than part of/has part would seem to imply that A is a parent of B (when it is not) and B is a subsid of A (when it is not). I'm unsure a) why that is not clear and b) why anyone would wish to choose what seems to be the less appropriate property pair. It seems like an underpant gnome jump is being made from 'it's two organisations that have a relationship' to 'it must be a parent/subsid relationship' without any intervening analysis or logic. From the top of my head, Trusts and the NHS; CRCs and the Probation Service; private prisons and the Prison Service all have non-parent/subsid relations which are frankly *excellently* described by part of/has part. smh. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 03:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Better than that, a private prison or a CRC will almost invariably have a parent/subsid relationship - e.g. with Serco, G4S, &c - and has part/part of relations with the Probation and Prison services. Are we seriously expending electrons wondering whether we should set a blind bot off to screw over predicate choices which humans can find difficult to make, on the basis of an ill-considered syllogism? -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 03:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The private prison would be neither part of nor a subsidiary of the Probation and Prison services, it would be a contractor. Ghouston ( talk ) 06:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) As services/facilities would it be operator (P137) for operators of prisons and CRCs, and part of (P361) for the service they are part of? NHS trusts can just have P361. Peter James ( talk ) 14:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)@ Tagishsimon : b) Because they happened to find that one—the labels are inappropriate/missing in their interface language, they didn’t really understand the distinction, or P749 simply didn’t exist when the statement has been added (P361 is a few months older). I understand that I made a too big generalization and this shouldn’t be done in the way I proposed, maybe even the vast majority of the statements my query finds is right, but I’m sure there are wrong statements. The question is only whether we can find and fix them without making any wrong edits. (Probably we can’t.) — Tacsipacsi ( talk ) 01:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)I also see a problem. I am currently organizing the structure of the Federal Government of the United States of America (Q48525) and notice there are varying differences in choices between the two properties. For example, the Federal Government of the United States of America (Q48525) has numerous subsidiary (P355) statements that are technically part of (P361) executive branch of the U.S. government (Q104907540) . I'm going to remove and move them, but I'm conflicted about wheter I should keep the current property structure using parent organization (P749) or switch to part of (P361) . I personally think that parent organization (P749) should be removed, or limited to specific types of organizations like companies or NGOs. part of (P361) would then be used for all other cases. Lectrician1 ( talk ) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)We cannot remove part of (P361) . It is used for conceptual concepts such as groups of people like music bands, members of sports teams, etc. parent organization (P749) seems like it should be used on actual defined organizations. For example, governments, company structures, nonprofits, etc. I agree that parent organization (P749) should be a subproperty of (P1647) part of (P361) in addition to the current owned by (P127) . That way it is known that there the property indicates that there is actual relationship of ownership and hierarchy structure similar, but different to the other use cases mentioned of part of (P361) . This also helps establish a link indicating a difference between owned by (P127) and part of (P361) . Lectrician1 ( talk ) 03:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The credit rating agencies that are part of the Big Three (Q4906536) could have P361 but not P749. There is also member of (P463) which says it can be used for members of a band or organisation; it's a subproperty of affiliation (P1416) so couldn't be used for linking to Q4906536 or anything similar. Peter James ( talk ) 14:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @ Peter James : As far as I understand, Big Three (Q4906536) isn’t an actual organization, just an umbrella term, so my proposal doesn’t apply here. (In any case, it’s not classified on Wikidata as an organization—it’s not classified at all—, so any bot that would have executed this task would have left these untouched.) — Tacsipacsi ( talk ) 01:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)@ Tacsipacsi : I agree with other commenters here that they are not interchangeable. One additional use I've seen which is not mentioned above is to use part of (P361) to link to a top-level organization (for example a particular university department to the university) whereas parent organization (P749) is for the next level in the organization (the university faculty that the department actually belongs to). parent organization (P749) expects the inverse subsidiary (P355) to also be present, which is reasonable, while part of (P361) does not require a has part (P527) inverse, which allows that sort of many-to-one relation to be encoded without overly burdening the top-level organization with a lot of the inverse one-to-many statements. ArthurPSmith ( talk ) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @ ArthurPSmith : I’ve never seen such usage, and I don’t quite understand its purpose. parent organization (P749) is transitive, isn’t it? The department has parent organization (P749) the faculty, which in turn has parent organization (P749) the university, so it’s transitively already described that the department belongs to the university, no additional part of (P361) statement is needed. — Tacsipacsi ( talk ) 01:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC) There is also business division (P199) for parts which aren't separate organizations. Ghouston ( talk ) 02:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I think people often use "part of"/"owned by" instead of "parent org" because the latter asks for a symmetric statement which is annoying. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 18:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Update on the support process review[ edit ]

Hello all,

Here’s an update on the support process review project , that has been ongoing since September last year. We didn’t give a lot of news on this page since the end of the survey, but we did a lot of work internally to analyze your feedback and come up with ideas that could help to solve the mentioned problems!

As a reminder, here are the main areas of improvement that we identified, together with you:

Having a better/clearer overview of the open bugs and already reported issuesImproving the way tasks are triaged and monitored, as well as the creation of Phabricator ticketsBeing able to suggest and vote for the most important features and bugs to fixThe possibility of communicating in other languages than EnglishMaking processes and priorities more transparentReducing the amount of channels where the development team actively provides support

For each area, we’ve been brainstorming on ways to solve these issues, identify the ideas that are possible to implement, and define feasibility and priority for each of them. We could select some concrete tasks that we can work on in the next months, and others that will be worked on later during the year.

These ideas include for example: communicate more about our development roadmap and our priorities (why we choose tasks over others), improve the contact the development team set of pages to improve the documentation on how to report an issue , encourage reports in languages other than English , improve the content and structure of tasks on Phabricator to help finding existing tasks , evaluate the possibility of joining WMF’s community wishlist and include community requests in our roadmap. These are just a few of them, you can find the full list here .

We will keep you updated on the project page, for example to ask your feedback about the redesigned documentation page that we started working on. If you have any feedback, for example if some of the ideas don’t seem useful to you, or if you feel like something important is missing, feel free to add a comment on the talk page .

Thanks for your attention! Léa and Mohammed - Lea Lacroix (WMDE) ( talk ) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

JSTOR[ edit ]

Could anyone pls tag it in simple wikipedia per created as here to Q1420342 . One more thing can you tell me when will I be an autoconfirmed user. TTP1233 ( talk ) 10:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@ TTP1233 : The sitelink has been added by User:BrokenSegue . ArthurPSmith ( talk ) 18:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)St. Mary's Hospital ( Q100276507 ): hospital in Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States[ edit ]

Some time ago, I created that as a place of birth (P19) -value. It would be good if more information about it could be found. It seems it no longer exists (or was renamed) and somehow disappears among many other hospitals of the same name, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. --- Jura 11:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge Sacrament and Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church[ edit ]

I'm not sure what are the differences between https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3233636 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q49703 Don't they talk about the same thing?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.64.12.108 ( talk  •  contribs ) at 18:08, January 20, 2021‎ (UTC).

The first is general to all christian churches (and perhaps others?) while the second is specific to one denomination. ArthurPSmith ( talk ) 18:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Petition for a merger[ edit ]

Hi, I would like to merge the following items but I don't understand how: 1080 recetas de cocina ( Q84022085 ) and 1080 recetas de cocina ( Q84022082 ). Can I ask someone to do it for me? Thanks and regards-- El Mono Español ( talk ) 00:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No. One is an item for the literary work; the other an item for an edition of that work. There is more information on the preferred structure for items pertaining to books at Wikidata:WikiProject Books ; in particular the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model which differentiates between works and editions. In any event, because one points to the other - Q84022085#P629 , they will not merge. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 00:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Collections split between two (or more) museums[ edit ]

Hello, hoping someone can help. Wondering if there's a better / best way to model a collection of artefacts that has been split between two or more museums? Working with the National Museum of Scotland on some images of the Lewis Chessmen (Q217796), a collection that's split between the National Museum of Scotland, the British Museum, and the Museum nan Eilean (latter is a long term loan from the BM.) Have added NMS as an additional location, was going to add MnE but just in case there's a better way to do this? Advice appreciated. Also for ref, this has come about due to trying to get the object template to display the correct locations on commons (eg here. Sara Thomas (WMUK) ( talk ) 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding locations to Q217796#P276 is correct. It's just that, when trying to locate each piece, you probably wont get around making an item for each one of them. --- Jura 13:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)You might also add collection or exhibition size (P1436) to each of the collections, indicating how many chessmen each one has. And if you have a list of which pieces are where, you might also qualify the collections with named as (P1810) "black queen", "white rook", etc. for each piece - it takes a string so you don't need to make QIDs for each piece. - PKM ( talk ) 23:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Program for Cooperative Cataloging Wikidata Pilot[ edit ]

The Identity Management Task Group of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging has launched a Wikidata pilot that will run for at least a year. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging is an international cooperative effort aimed at expanding access to library collections through cataloging that meets mutually-accepted standards of libraries around the world. The pilot is an opportunity for catalogers to begin or continue to work in Wikidata in their everyday work and further integrate contributions to Wikidata into regular metadata workflows in libraries. 70+ institutions are participating in the pilot and are editing and creating items related to their institutions and collections. The work is documented in the WikiProject PCC Wikidata Pilot . Some institutions are using on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) to keep track of items they have added when not easily retrieved with a query, or if they intend to go back and further enhance them. Check out the project page if you are interested in further information about the pilot.-- Chicagohil ( talk ) 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Chicagohil : In general I would recommend for most instiutions to have their own identifiers and request a property for an external ID instead of using on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) . If you think that there's example when that isn't a good solution and you think it's required to use on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) , can you be more explicit about which examples you have in mind? ChristianKl ❫ 19:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)@ ChristianKl : I don't understand what an external ID would point to. For example for this item created by University of Washington: Lewis Hall (Q98836126) what would a PCC or University of Washington Libraries external ID be pointing to? We don't maintain our own IDs for entities like this. We use the presence of P5008 with the name of our Wikiproject to create a Listeria list of all the items that we have created or edited as part of our project: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_PCC_Wikidata_Pilot/University_of_Washington/Items_Created_or_Edited . We also use it to create separate lists by type of entity ( humans , buildings , organizations , other , and properties ). UWashPrincipalCataloger ( talk ) 07:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ UWashPrincipalCataloger : Okay, that seems to be a decent use-case. I can understand why a libary might want to add data about items like that without having their own identifiers for it. ChristianKl ❫ 14:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)parliamentary group ( P4100 ) for Angus King ( Q544464 ) and Bernie Sanders ( Q359442 )[ edit ]

Currently this is set to independent politician (Q327591) . Which is probably correct in terms of the "party" they were elected for.

As the qualifier is for "parliamentary group" during the term, shouldn't this be Democratic Party (Q29552) ? --- Jura 20:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd assume you have to be a member of the party to be part of their political faction. Otherwise, you've just got some kind of political alliance or coalition. Ghouston ( talk ) 21:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Some affiliation is there, otherwise there wouldn't be a 50:50 split. In Wikidata, it's currently 50R, 48D, 2?. Maybe the value shouldn't be Democratic Party (Q29552) , but Democratic caucus or even Democratic caucus of the US senate? Possibly, in the US that difference doesn't matter that much and we could stay with Democratic Party (Q29552) .The entire point of having a qualifier for the parliamentary group is that we can added that grouping.BTW list of current United States Senators (Q2297935) has two queries for the current composition. They currently do list 100 members! --- Jura 21:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Then I'd say it comes down to external sources: is there documentation for the idea that these politicians are part of the Democratic Party, or the Democratic Party caucus, or whatever it is we are saying that they are part of? Ghouston ( talk ) 22:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC) This from the Wikipedia article on Angus King: "For committee assignment purposes, he caucuses with the Democratic Party. He is one of two independents currently serving in the Senate, the other being Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who also caucuses with the Democrats." UWashPrincipalCataloger ( talk ) 07:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC) * A similar wording can be found on the senate website. --- Jura 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)You can also have a 50:50 split between a party and its allies and another party and it's allies (if the Republicans have anything similar). Ghouston ( talk ) 23:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I think the standard terminology is that Bernie Sanders "caucuses with" the Democratic Party. I'm not sure how this would/should be represented. Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 07:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to capture. Are you looking to search for times in which the Senate was split 50/50? I don't agree that which party a senator "tends to vote with" is the primary information we're trying to capture with parliamentary group (P4100) . Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 07:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)@ Andrew Gray , Oravrattas : who have previously thought about these issues, per Wikidata:Property_proposal/parliamentary_group . FWIW the relation of King/Sanders goes beyond "tends to vote with" and is closer to "members in all but name", in that they regularly attend party events, go on retreats with them and, you know, sometimes run for their candidacy for President. Matthias Winkelmann ( talk ) 10:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ Matthias Winkelmann : Party events and retreats sound far from anything official. Even if they voted 100% with Democrats, the relationship isn't binding nor registered in any way. Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)@ Dipsacus fullonum : who proposed the qualifier. --- Jura 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Thank for the ping. I proposed the property "parliamentary group" to express who are working together in a parliament. The parliamentary group can be but doesn't have to be members of a certain political party. I don't know enough about the US Senate to say if the 48 democrats and 2 independents together is a parliamentary group, but if these 50 persons do have joint meetings where they discuss and coordinate their politics, I would say yes. Finally I think it is a mistake to use independent politician (Q327591) for a parliamentary group. That isn't a parliamentary group because different independent members of a parliament don't necessarily have any kind of collaboration. I propose to instead use the special value "no value" if a member of parliament doesn't belong to any parliamentary group. -- Dipsacus fullonum ( talk ) 15:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Maybe it should be Democratic Caucus of the United States Senate (Q3117832) ? ChristianKl ❫ 17:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)I think this is one of those cases where you might reasonably expect either approach depending on what question you're thinking of - if it's "tell me the exact party affiliation of Senators" then you probably expect to have these two listed as some kind of independent, but if it's "tell me the overall voting split" you'd probably expect just to get 50:50. So I'm not sure there's a "perfect" answer here - either approach has flaws, and neither is obviously right or obviously wrong.I wonder if a good solution here would be to give them a parliamentary group (P4100) that is a "flavour" of independent, something like "independent caucusing with the Democrats". It means you'll still return Sanders and King in a different group from Leahy and Schumer, but make it clear that they are aligned with one side rather than another. Andrew Gray ( talk ) 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ Andrew Gray : Why do you think the Democratic caucus isn't a parliamentary group and we should make up a new parliamentary group? ChristianKl ❫ 22:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ ChristianKl : I think using "Democratic caucus" has the problem that it makes it a little difficult to obviously see the difference between Sanders and "full Democrats", though I'd agree it's better than saying Sanders should be listed as "Democratic Party". Personally I think the type-of-independent approach seems a bit clearer. I don't think it's really "making up" a group, though. Andrew Gray ( talk ) 22:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure that this is valuable to capture. For real questions you're likely looking for other information, like votes on a specific topic or chairs of specific chairs. In my book it's better to add more information than obscure information which exists to cover more ground. Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)But if we're after clarity, then parliamentary group (P4100) probably isn't appropriate for indicating party elected on because the Senate is not a parliament. It was used only to maintain a facsimile of consistency across nations. Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)I think a parliamentary group is the kind of thing that regulations thus as the regulation that govers committee appointsments and sometimes speaking slots care about. The term is not about the party ticket on which a person got their seat. Sorry. I'm having trouble parsing this. I'm not sure what you mean by "governs". Do you have specific rules you can cite? I'd rather have facts which can be referenced than try to capture people's sense of how things should work. Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 23:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)As far as the senate being a parliament, the main definition of parliament that Wikipedia uses seems to be that it's a legislative body. I think the senate qualifies under such a broad definition (and it's reasonable to use it here). ChristianKl ❫ 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I looked at this previously, and it seemed like a "parliament" is a just a legislature (Q11204) that happens to include "parliament" in it's English name: Talk:Q35749 . Interestingly, Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q11010) isn't an instance of parliament (Q35749) , or any subclass of it. Ghouston ( talk ) 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)I think it's fairly clear that this goes beyond mere voting preference. For parliaments with more than one or two parties, it's not uncommon that there is a difference between party membership and the parliamentary group of its members. Not too long ago, we discussed how to reflect that two Canadian minister had been excluded from their group in parliament, but not from the party. There P4100 could easily be used to reflect this. For the two persons above, Democratic Caucus of the United States Senate (Q3117832) mentioned by @ ChristianKl : seems fairly close to the purpose of parliamentary group (P4100) . There is a similar item for Republicans. @ Dipsacus fullonum : what do you think? Accordingly, we could update the P4100 values to that. For actual party membership, there is a different property. --- Jura 09:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Whatever you choose to do, please make sure it's consistent for all historical entries. Regards, Gettinwikiwidit ( talk )Changing it means that templates used for pages like Wikidata:WikiProject_every_politician/United_States_of_America will not work as expected. Did we ever get an answer why we think this is a change worth making? Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) @ Gettinwikiwidit : parliamentary group (P4100) is by name about parliamentary groups. Democratic Caucus of the United States Senate (Q3117832) happens to be the parliamentary group to which Bernie Sanders (Q359442) belongs. Putting in valid values into statements is part of what Wikidata is about and it wouldn't be a change in our datamodel. Allowing both parliamentary group (Q848197) and political party (Q7278) in parliamentary group (P4100) produces some problems. If we want consistent modelling then it would make sense to get rid of political party (Q7278) as valid value for parliamentary group (P4100) . ChristianKl ❫ 16:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC) @ ChristianKl : I don't disagree. The reason this model was chosen is explained above. Regards, Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 23:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)However, I do question who is going to find which caucuses senators have belonged to historically. Do you have a good resource? Or is the plan just to fill it in going forward? If this is going to be extremely spotty information I think it fair to ask if it's worth it. I.e. I think there are projects for more deserving of time. Including info about US senators. Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)It seems we identified the appropriate values for parliamentary group (P4100) . Thanks for your input. --- Jura 08:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)For clarity, I will restate my request that whatever course is chosen that it be consistent across all historical entries. Regards, Gettinwikiwidit ( talk ) 10:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Lexeme compound word[ edit ]

Hi all! I'm new to Lexemes. I was wondering how to properly denote that the following lexeme words are compound words:

balkongdörr (L406874) = balkong (L406875) + dörr (L32563) fotbollslandskamp (L400298) = fotboll (L406886) + -s- + landskamp (L240903) landskamp (L240903) = land (L32882) + -s- + kamp (L33138)

Is there currently a model on how to do this? ( t Josve05a  ( c ) 22:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Josve05a : Based on the property examples, it looks like combines (P5238) does what you want; I'm not sure how you would encode the "-s-", but unless that has meaning in Swedish, that might not be an issue. Vahurzpu ( talk ) 01:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ Vahurzpu : In this specific case, I would describe -s- as a linking morpheme (Q1472909) . The construction "landkamp" does not fit the mouth very well. By adding -s-, the parts become joinable. Sometimes, they exists in the spoken language, but are missing in the written language. Where to use them and where to not use them, requires an academic degree to master. 62 etc ( talk ) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Exactly, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L60603 for an example -- So9q ( talk ) 23:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC) @ Josve05a : An example that is a bit more complete is smörgåsbord (L54463) . Ainali ( talk ) 22:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Two posible values[ edit ] Le Kattendijck, Anvers.jpg

How do we deal with two posible values for the property date postally canceled (P9052) ? Smiley.toerist ( talk ) 23:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe change the date to "1900s", with earliest date and latest date qualifiers of 1903 and 1905. This doesn't exclude 1904 as a possibility though. Ghouston ( talk ) 01:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)@ Pamputt : who added the single value constraint. --- Jura 11:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I wil scan the backside and upload it. On second examination I tend to favor '5'. Only the lower part of the digit is visible, however the upper part of the lower semicircle turns downwards. Bij a three it would be horizontal. However the principle still stands: What happens when there are two posibilties? I would favor a broader range 1903-1905. One can always put a comment in the talk page. One should not try to define every posible rare variant. Smiley.toerist ( talk ) 13:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Achterkant Le Kattendijck briefkaart.jpg Smiley.toerist

Smiley.toerist ( talk ) 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle?[ edit ]

Do we have that here? -- Derpdart56 ( talk ) 14:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Do we need it? This is authored data, not freeform writing. Quakewoody ( talk ) 15:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Twinkle is a useful for greeting, advising and where necessary warning fellow editors. I can certainly see use-cases for several Twinkle tools, here Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 17:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know we need Twinkle or not but I have never used it in this project. Can you give some examples of how it can be used here? Alphama ( talk ) 07:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Alphama : See en:Wikipedia:Twinkle . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 21:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC) @ Pigsonthewing : I don't mean that. I need examples how Twinkle can work on Wikidata. I did research Twinkle before. Alphama ( talk ) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't have twinkle, but these few can help:

Greeting/warning users: User:Bene*/userwarn.js , User:Ahmad252/scripts/UserWarning.js Tagging for speedy deletion: Wikidata-centric > RequestDeletion

‐‐ 1997kB  ( talk ) 13:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hierarchy of rivers and streams[ edit ]

I know that we have various tools for displaying the family tree of a group of humans; do we have something similar for the tributaries of waterways? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Pigsonthewing : https://www.entitree.com/en/mouth_of_the_watercourse/Danube -- GZWDer ( talk ) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you, but that's more of a linear representation, rather than a tree. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)How do I indicate that values belong to different versions of the item?[ edit ]

I'm updating Ithkuil (Q35846) , and I've run into a problem: different versions of the language have wildly different grammars. For example, versions 1 to 3 have fusional grammars, but the WIP version 4 is almost completely agglutinative. Same with the native names: there's a different one for each version. Is there a qualifier I can use to indicate that a value belongs to a certain version or revision?

If they differ so much, and you want to describe a particular version, perhaps a separate item for each version would be helpful. Ghouston ( talk ) 06:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Items to merge[ edit ] My script

My script suspects that the items below need to be merged. I already merged dozens, but I have no time left for a while. Would someone please be kind enough to check and merge them? Please write "done" afterwards. Thanks so much! :-)

Syced

Syced ( talk ) 09:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You could use QuickStatements if you are sure they are the same. --- Jura 10:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Done, with the exception of the US & UN missions, which are both in the US but different things. I've also corrected the operator which, according to enwiki, is the Holy See and not the Vatican. -- Matthias Winkelmann ( talk ) 01:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)ISO 639-3 language code issues[ edit ]

While working with lists of ISO 639-3 codes from wikidata entities I found Kituba (Q35746) that refers to the Kituba language in general which is accompanied by Kituba (Q63283489) (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Kituba (Q12953639) (Republic of the Congo). Each of these last two has its ISO code set correctly, (ktu and mkw respectively) but the general one has both codes. I noticed the property has single and distinct value constraints which raises warnings in the first entity I mentioned. My question is: since there are entities for each of the languages, shouldn't we remove the ISO codes from the general entity?.
Thanks for your attention, josecurioso ❯❯❯ Tell me! 21:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello @ josecurioso : I agree that the code should be removed from the general item. While I have not looked much into languages, a similar situation exists for units of measurement, where we sometimes have one general item and various more specific versions (say, for US and UK). Usually the latter ones have conversion factors and external identifiers pointing to other ontologies. Toni 001 ( talk ) 09:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)QID on mw:Extension:CiteThisPage [ edit ]

Is there a good way we could suggest to interested projects to include the QID for some formats generally output by that extension?

The sample mentioned there is w:Train where the "cite this page" gives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CiteThisPage/Train?page=Train&wpFormIdentifier=titleform

Currently, no format at enwiki includes the QID. Note this is not about the use of the extension on Wikidata itself.


Maybe this interests <ping project should not be used in an indented reply> Mattsenate ( talk ) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
KHammerstein (WMF) ( talk ) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mitar ( talk ) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz ( talk ) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen ( talk ) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Merrilee ( talk ) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Pharos ( talk ) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DarTar ( talk ) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
HLHJ ( talk ) 09:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
JakobVoss ( talk ) 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) ( talk ) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Jodi.a.schneider ( talk ) 09:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Abecker ( talk ) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer ( talk ) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Kopiersperre ( talk ) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Dugan ( talk ) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hfordsa ( talk ) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev ( talk ) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Runner1928 ( talk ) 03:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete F ( talk )
econterms ( talk ) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sj ( talk )
TomT0m
guillom ( talk ) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
addshore 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bodhisattwa ( talk ) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ainali ( talk ) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Shani Evenstein ( talk ) 21:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Skim ( talk ) 07:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
PKM ( talk ) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ocaasi ( talk ) 22:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Trilotat Trilotat ( talk ) 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
NAH
Iwan.Aucamp
Alessandra Boccone
Pablo Busatto ( talk ) 05:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Blrtg1 ( talk ) 17:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Kosboot ( talk ) 21:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Matlin ( talk ) 09:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Carrierudd ( talk ) 11:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
So9q ( talk ) 11:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData

<ping project should not be used in an indented reply> LeadSongDog ( talk ) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
RobLa-WMF ( talk ) 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Kosboot ( talk ) 20:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Peaceray ( talk ) 18:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
PKM ( talk ) 16:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Aubrey ( talk ) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara ( talk ) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli ( talk ) 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation ( talk ) 17:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Satdeep Gill ( talk ) 14:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Raymond Ellis ( talk ) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Crazy1880 ( talk ) 18:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
T Arrow ( talk ) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
GerardM ( talk ) 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC) With a particular interest of opening up sources about Botany and opening up any freely licensed publications.
Clifford Anderson ( talk ) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Jsamwrites ( talk ) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk ) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo ( talk ) 18:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hsarrazin ( talk ) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas ( talk ) 10:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Samat ( talk )
Ivanhercaz Plume pen w.png ( Talk ) 20:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Simon Cobb ( User:Sic19 - talk page ) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Mahdimoqri ( talk ) 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos ( talk ) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jaireeodell ( talk ) 14:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Egon Willighagen ( talk ) 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
RobinMelanson ( talk ) 2:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev ( talk ) 03:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC) interested, in particular because of TRR project https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56259739
Maxlath ( talk ) 18:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Dcflyer ( talk ) 21:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Trilotat Trilotat ( talk ) 15:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Mfchris84 ( talk ) 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Salgo60 ( talk )
Walkuraxx ( talk ) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
NAH
FULBERT ( talk ) 17:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Wolfgang8741 ( talk ) 20:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Csisc ( talk ) 17:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Phoebe ( talk ) 16:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Bitofdust ( talk ) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData/More --- Jura 13:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Jura1 : I think you wish to propose that interested other projects, such as individual Wikipedias for various languages, return the QID in this extension which generates citation metadata.Ideally decisions about how mw:Extension:CiteThisPage operates could happen at MediaWiki. If I understand correctly, you think or know that the change you propose would require permission from the local volunteer communities at individual Wikimedia projects.I think you are asking if anyone has ideas for getting this support from various communities.If that is the case, such broad community discussion over this feature seems unlikely because of its abstractness. Can you say more about what you want your result to be, and what your idea is for getting to that result? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Technically, I think it's probably already possible to output the QID. The question is more what would be the best way to include the QID in various citation formats. Contributors at Wikidata might be more likely to know about that or interested in figuring it out. Once it's clear, we can suggest it here and there. Supposedly each wiki maintains its own MediaWiki:Citethispage-content --- Jura 15:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Are Holocaust-Transports P2632 or P793[ edit ]

Hello,

are Holocaust-Transports in Personitems better as P2632 or P793 .

Examples:

Q76220

Q76220 - here the transport is in P2632

Q100152745

Q100152745 - her it is in P793

What do you think and how can the wrong ones mass-changed?


Thanks -- McSearch ( talk ) 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

significant event (P793) is used in 77,415 cases, place of detention (P2632) in 503 cases. Changing these would tend to involve some SPARQL to get data for the 503, and quickstatements or wikibase-cli to remove P2632 data and add P793.SELECT?propertyItemLabel(count(?propertyItem)as?count)WHERE{?item?propertyRel?transport.?transportwdt:P31wd:Q61927259.?propertyItemwikibase:directClaim?propertyRelSERVICEwikibase:label{bd:serviceParamwikibase:language"en".}}group by?propertyItemLabel Try it! -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Jorge Bernal mixup[ edit ]

We have Jorge Bernal (Q26897903) and Jorge Bernal (Q26897903) , which both seem to describe the same soccer player (but it could be also two different players?), and in the latter one, a TV presenter is mixed up also. Can somebody please clean up those items? Steak ( talk ) 10:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jorge Bernal (Q6277748) is the original item; the English article, originally about the footballer, had been replaced with content about a television presenter and was moved to a new item Q26897903, linking it to es:Jorge Bernal (presentador de televisión) . When the changes were reverted the link wasn't moved back, so content about the footballer was added there. The Arabic pages are primarily about the footballer, but mix information about both people. Peter James ( talk ) 13:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Q6277748 is the footballer, and Q26897903 is the television presenter. I moved the English and Arabic links to Q6277748. Peter James ( talk ) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Aspect of history vs. list[ edit ]

Hi all. If history of the bicycle (Q2059831) was instance of (P31) = Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) , then I wouldn't hesitate to use category related to list (P1754) to link it to Category:Bicycles (Q7025398) (and list related to category (P1753) to link back again). However, it is instance of (P31) = aspect of history (Q17524420) . I have quite a few examples of this, as it's important for linking 'History of' articles to the relevant Commons category on enwp, but before I try to sort them out systematically, I'd like some input. Would it make sense to use category related to list (P1754) anyway, or do we need a new pair of properties for these links, or something else? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Mike Peel : We have history of topic (P2184) for the topic → history direction, and I think facet of (P1269) works pretty well for the history → topic direction. I don't know if we need a new property. Vahurzpu ( talk ) 16:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks, but I'm particularly interested in the history → category aspect of this (linking enwp to commons via wikidata). Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 16:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)A history in list form is generally called a timeline. Timeline is one of the possible types for facet of (P1269) . If it's just called "history of <topic>", it's not considered a list.--- Jura 08:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Authority over coin minting[ edit ]

I raised this issue in the Numismatics Project page but was advised to bring here for broader discussion. I was wondering about the best way to model authorities in WD. For example, if you look at this coin Tetradrachm of Caracalla, Roman Emperor, from Cyrrhus, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1938.6000.56 (Q100477694) , the coin was produced in the regnal years of Caracalla, under the authority of Caracalla. See here for more info. What would be the best way to model this? depicts (P180) is not always a good property in these scenarios because the emperor is not always depicted on the coins produced in their era and commissioned by (P88) is perhaps too strong a claim (the emperor may have oversight of use of his imperial image and the minting of coins but the processes of commission can vary dramatically in different parts of the empire with local boards responsible for minting). I see that one user has used authority (P797) with this coin Caliph standing (coin face) (Q66372570) for a similar situation. There was some ambivalence about the use of this project for coins. I was wondering if it might be suitable to create a property like "regnal period of" or something which could also be applied. What do people think would be the best way to model? Valeriummaximum ( talk ) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Valeriummaximum : The British Museum uses role terms like Issuer, Moneyer etc: see https://confluence.ontotext.com/display/ResearchSpace/BM+Association+Mapping . So I agree that a new prop is needed. Call it eg "minting authority" or "moneying authority" and not "regnal period of" -- Vladimir Alexiev ( talk ) 00:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #452[ edit ] Wikidata-logo-en.svg Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week. Events Past: Wikidata+Wikibase office hour happened on January 21st. See notes here (English).Past: 2021 OpenStreetMap x Wikidata Beginner Teaching Workshop (in Chinese). Replay on YouTube 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Upcoming: Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group call: Wikibase, the Integrated Authority File (GND) pilot at the German National Library, and the WikiLibrary Manifesto, 26 January. Agenda Upcoming: SPARQL queries and OpenRefine live on Twitch and in French by Vigneron, Januray 26 at 18:00 CETUpcoming video: LIVE Wikidata editing #29 - YouTube , Facebook , 30 JanuaryUpcoming: Online Wikidata meetup in Swedish #47 , 31 JanuaryUpcoming: The Open Festival of Persistent Identifiers starts from 27 January 2021. See schedule here . Press, articles, blog posts, videos Blog: Adding New Literature Sources to the Wikidata Integrator , by Charles Tapley HoytBlog: Using Wikidata for teaching computer programming using real-world cases (in Basque)Bog: Wikidata: data for everyone (in Dutch)Methodology paper: A protocol for adding knowledge to Wikidata: aligning resources on human coronaviruses Video: Wikidata editing #28 - YouTube , Facebook Video: Wikidata for research (webinar in French) - YouTubeVideo: Let's make sparks with SPARQL tools (in French), by Nicolas Vigneron -YouTubeVideo: Wrap up presentation of the SWAT4HCLS hackathon project Creating subsets from Wikidata - YouTube Linking the complex portal with other FAIR sources through - YouTubeTool of the week TAViewer is a web-based anatomy atlas viewer that cross-references Terminologia Anatomica terms with data from Wikipedia and Wikidata.Other Noteworthy Stuff Change to how Cloud VPS and Toolforge contact Wikis to go live on 2021-02-08 . If you are a Cloud VPS user or Toolforge developer, check your tools after that date to make sure they are properly running.Did you know?Newest properties : General datatypes: character type , derived from organism type , applicable “stated in” value , number of aid beneficiaries External identifiers: BABEL author ID , Base de Dados de Autores Portugueses ID , Povos Indígenas no Brasil ID , Parabola package , FL number , Hungarian Film Archive ID , IFPI Danmark work ID , International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ID , Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine ID , NZ Museums ID , StrategyWiki page , Australian Fungi ID , Discord invite ID , Red Cross FDRS ID , JAANUS ID , SEARCH on line catalogue ID New property proposals to review: General datatypes: onscreen participant , catégorie d'établissement sanitaire et social , code Activité principale exercée , catégorie d'entreprise , Imagehash perceptual hash External identifiers: SISSCO ID , 45cat release ID , Aracne author ID , Malpedia ID , Kulturdenkmal-ID Sachsen-Anhalt , Swiss Games Showcase ID , Baudenkmal-ID Niedersachsen , PeriodO ID , Pepys Encylopedia ID , Pantone color ID , Family Video Game Database ID , AAR ID , github topic , TeatralRo ID , Landshuth ID , Patrinum ID , ChemRxiv ID , TlF ID , PO ID , Jewish Museum Berlin object ID , CinefanRo person ID , CinefanRo film ID , LombardiaBeniCulturali archive producer IDs , BookBub Author ID , HERIS-ID Query examples: Czech religious buildings used also as a fire station Common ingredients to prepare a sandwich ( Source ) Location of GLAMs with open access policies ( Source) Mexican presidents who have an image of their signature on Wikidata ( Source ) Timeline of Mexican writers who were born between 1800 and 1900 ( Source ) TV-Series in Spain by Decade ( Source ) Diplomats who are also art collectors ( Source )DevelopmentContinued working on the Query Builder: made it possible to limit the number of results in the result set, made it possible to include results from subclasses when querying for Item values, worked on negating queries and started on sharing of queries via URL. As always you can try the current state on the test system .Making links in the Query Service redirect to the proper translations of their pages on-wiki by using Special:MyLanguage redirects ( phab:T267656 )Working on fixing an issue with displaying large numbers for quantity values ( phab:T268456 )Fixed a case where no error message was shown when trying to save a Lemma with an invalid language code ( phab:T265783 )Talked to a few more people about checking Wikidata's data against other databases to find potential errorsContinuing the Release Strategy project for Wikibase, with the following progress: Created a “release pipeline” for Wikibase extension ( phab:T267627 )Created MediaWiki docker images based off release branches ( phab:T270133 )Defined format and contents of Wikibase suite components not maintained by Wikimedia Germany ( phab:T271194 ) You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here

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

Monthly TasksAdd labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.Comment on property proposals: all open proposals 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 · Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC) No Wikidata Cleanup[ edit ]

Problem

I notice that Wikidata has no way of indicating that an item needs cleanup. There is no Wikidata Cleanup, categories, or templates.

Examples of things that need cleanup structures

Marcus Money (Q83897822) requires a lot of attention. It is an item for a music artist that has identifiers for every one of the artist's releases using YouTube video ID (P1651) , Spotify track ID (P2207) , and more. These releases should have their own items.I've seen on some property documentation templates that the property's author will put "TODO" for constraints that they have not added or conflicts the property has with certain items they have not addressed.Circularism/Broader problems: Wikidata has some general "systems/structures" for certain classes of items. For example the linking Wikiproject classes and instances of Wikidata property about Wikimedia entities (Q51118821) create a massive structure for linked categories, templates, articles, lists, and more between Wikiprojects. One current problem of this system is that Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) runs into some circularism issues with its has list (P2354) Wikimedia list of lists (Q33532284) statement. This is just one example of a circular issue, but I'm sure there are plenty of other broad issues about systems that I have not come across yet and need to be addressed and documented in a cleanup effort. Broader problems should not be limited to one entity's talk page, or only be documented on Wikidata:Project_chat , where they usually are and where they'll eventually be archived.

Current cleanup structure

Thankfully we have Template:Interwiki_conflict which puts their pages under Category:Interwiki conflicts , but that only addresses property/interwiki conflicts. That's about the only "cleanup" category we have right now.

Addressing the problem

Should I:

Startup the Wikiproject page Wikidata:Cleanup Create a set of templates and categories for entities that need cleanup

For example, a Template:Item cleanup could be:

Placed at the top of an item's Talk page.Gives general description that there is a problemProvides parameters for certain statements of the item and their properties/values that need addressing.Adds cleanup categories: Items that need cleanup, Items of (property) that need cleanup for every property parameter in the template, and items with value (value) that need cleanup for every value parameter in the template.

So... and help needed

If you think this is needed, please indicate so and I'm happy to start right away!

I'm a relatively new Wikidatian/Wikimedian so I only have a 50% grasp on creating Templates and have never ran/been part of a Wikiproject before, so I'll need some help.

-- Lectrician1 ( talk ) 22:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Support We have a number of more systematic approaches with lists and WDQS queries, but something item-specific like this would be nice too, thanks! ArthurPSmith ( talk ) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)  Oppose as described. We have constraints to mark items that need improvement. Marcus Money (Q83897822) shows a bunch of different constraint violations and is on lists for those constraint violations. I see no reason why we would need another way to classify this item. For broader problems that span multiple items, putting a tracking category on individual item, doesn't seem to be a good way to describe the problem. Having a discussion on the relevant Wikiproject is likely better. ChristianKl ❫ 12:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Do all courses on Wikiversity ie. Python Concepts and Python Programming get Wikidata items?[ edit ]

Python Python (Q28865) is an article(is this a "resource"?) on Wikiversity which has two courses:

v:Python Concepts (does not have a Wikidata item, should it have one?) v:Python Programming Python Programming (Q37082486) (evidently this course has a Wikidata item but should it have one?)

My question is, should all courses on Wikiversity have Wikidata items and if yes how should they be tagged? Will all Wikiversity courses have instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) values?

If you wish you can help me by analysing the v:Python (to help me if anything listed there could need its own Wikidata item) ie. we also have v:Python/pip (package manager) but in my mind that page "belongs to Python" making me assume that it should not have a Wikidata item because v:Python which it belongs to already has a Wikidata item. LotsofTheories ( talk ) 06:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Best practice / lesson learned for External Identifiers[ edit ]

I did this list User:Salgo60/ExternalIdentifiers gathering problems I have seen when connecting Wikidata with an external source.... Please add/comment.... - Salgo60 ( talk ) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's reach consensus on descriptions for our scientific article descriptions[ edit ]

Hi, recently we discussed in the telegram channel how to describe these by bot, because no description on a lot of items yields a pretty awful UI experience in the wbsearchentities API (upper right search box).

I have 1 proposal, feel free to add your own (or your dogs):

scientific article published in {label of journal} on {date} by {count} authors"e.g. for https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q88717290 : scientific article published in Chemosphere on 09 May 2018 by 8 authors

Proposal by Nikki:

scientific article published in {label of journal} in {year}"e.g. for https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q88717290 : scientific article published in Chemosphere in 2018

-- So9q ( talk ) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

fine with either. even just "scientific article" or "scholarly article" (not sure how we know science v. other subjects) is better than the current state. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)With just the year there can sometimes be more than one with the same description, so the item is not created or is left with no description. Full date or issue number is sometimes necessary (for example Q60101729 and Q60265965 ). Peter James ( talk ) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)It should be as terse as needed, and only be expanded if there are more than one articles with the same name in the same year in the same publication. The problem is the display box for description is about 80 characters, and you will only see the first 80 characters when typing. -- RAN ( talk ) 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I don't think this is a good place for this discussion. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData seems to be a better place. ChristianKl ❫ 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the proposal, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Source_MetaData#Discussion_about_descriptions_of_scientific_articles and please go there to discuss further.-- So9q ( talk ) 22:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)What qualifier can I add to someone born after the death of the father[ edit ]

What qualifier can I add to someone born after the death of the father to qualify the "contemporary constraint" flag. I want to create a Qid called "born after the father's death", but what property should it be attached to as a qualifier? I need something like "cause=born after the father's death". Any ideas? This way every I see it at Johan Christopher Ruuth I (Q50346736) I will not have to look to see if I made an error. -- RAN ( talk ) 19:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I request revdel?[ edit ]

Can't find a page describing how to request a revdel. Also, if there's an email link as well, I might prefer to do it that way. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk ) 21:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Mathglot : Our living people policy describes how to request removal in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people#Requests_for_the_removal_of_private_information privacy@wikidata.org is the relevant email address. In the spirit of making things easier for the next position in your situation, where did you search for this information and expected to find it? ChristianKl ❫ 21:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Consultation for Universal Code of Conduct - first round of questions is up![ edit ]

Hello everybody! It's time to kick-start the discussion about the Universal Code of Conduct and how to implement it. So let's get started with the first round of questions, about the pathways for UCoC enforcement.

The three questions that will be part of this round are:

What are the best paths for delicate issues? For example, consider a user belonging to a "vulnerable group" (in the broadest, most comprehensive meaning of the term), who is a target of actual (not perceived) harassment and/or credible threats of violence through our channels. In your opinion, how this case can be addressed? What would be the best path on the project for this user to report what is happening?How do we create better reporting pathways for people who are targets of harassment? In other words, do you think our current ways of dealing with non-welcome behaviours is the best way to report and deal with harassment too? Or do you think a separate or a complementary procedure should be set up? If yes, how?How do we deal with incidents that take place beyond the Wikimedia projects, but are directly related to them? For example, consider a Wikimedia-related discussion between Wikimedians that takes place on a non-Wikimedia platform, such as Telegram or Facebook or a mailing list, that degenerates in public harassment or other non-welcome behaviours. How would you deal with it? Should it have repercussions also on the projects?

Bear in mind that this is only the first round of questions, and that there are other aspects that will be taken into consideration, but if you think something's missing, please do bring it up in the discussion!

Be bold and have your say at the Consultation talk page ! -- Sannita (WMF) ( talk ) 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple start and end dates within a single property[ edit ]

So I have an question regarding the best way to handle multiple start and end dates within a single property. The specific example I'm having issues with is on Martin Mayhew's entry ( Q6776149 ) under the "member of sports team" property, as he formerly played for the Washington NFL team in the early 1990s and was just hired as the team's GM last week. Due to this, I can not have separate "stints" for him as a player and now GM within the same team/label, at least not cleanly. Any suggestions or options? Maybe creating a new "executive of sports team" label to go along with the "member of sports team" and "coach of sports team" ones? - Dissident93 ( talk ) 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Dissident93 : are GM's members of a sports team? maybe use employer (P108) ? we also have a coach property. If you must have multiple stints you can do it like we do politicians serving multiple (non-consecutiive) terms in the same position. just list the position/team multiple times with different qualifiers specifying the time ranges. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @ Dissident93 : I see, I had not thought to check politicians for examples. Failing that, employer (P108) would work. Thanks. - Dissident93 ( talk ) 00:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Improper images[ edit ]

Here Q1547571 .

There are some of his works, not depicting himself. Attached as images. What should be done? Or nothing? Please, sort it out and/or answer here. Longbowman ( talk ) 08:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

They get deleted. Done. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Retrieved from " https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=1349257831 " Category : Wikidata-en Navigation menuPersonal toolsNot logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Project page Discussion VariantsViews Read Edit Add topic View history MoreSearch
Navigation Main page Community portal Project chat Create a new Item Recent changes Random Item Query Service Nearby Help Donate Lexicographical data Create a new Lexeme Recent changes Random Lexeme Tools What links here Related changes Special pages Permanent link Page information Wikidata item Print/export Create a book Download as PDF Printable version In other projects Wikimedia Commons MediaWiki Meta-Wiki Wikispecies Wikibooks Wikinews Wikipedia Wikiquote Wikisource Wikiversity Wikivoyage Wiktionary In Wikipedia Аҧсшәа Acèh Адыгабзэ Afrikaans Akan Alemannisch አማርኛ Aragonés Ænglisc العربية ܐܪܡܝܐ مصرى ������� Asturianu Atikamekw Aymar aru تۆرکجه Башҡортса Basa Bali Boarisch Žemaitėška Български ������� Banjar Bamanankan ����� ������� ������������� ������� Brezhoneg Bosanski ᨅᨔ ᨕᨘᨁᨗ Català Chavacano de Zamboanga Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ Нохчийн Cebuano ᏣᎳᎩ Tsetsêhestâhese کوردی Corsu Nēhiyawēwin / ᓀᐦᐃᔭᐍᐏᐣ Qırımtatarca Čeština Kaszëbsczi Чӑвашла Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Thuɔŋjäŋ Zazaki Dolnoserbski ������ Ελληνικά Emiliàn e rumagnòl English Esperanto Español Eesti Euskara Estremeñu فارسی Fulfulde Suomi Võro Føroyskt Français Arpetan Nordfriisk Furlan Frysk Gaeilge 贛語 Gàidhlig Galego گیلکی Avañe'ẽ ������ ������ / Gõychi Konknni Bahasa Hulontalo ������������������������ ������� 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî Hawaiʻi עברית ������ Hrvatski Hornjoserbsce Kreyòl ayisyen Magyar Հայերեն Արեւմտահայերէն Interlingua Bahasa Indonesia Interlingue Igbo Iñupiak Ilokano Ido Íslenska Italiano ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ/inuktitut 日本語 Patois La .lojban. Jawa ქართული Taqbaylit Gĩkũyũ Қазақша Kalaallisut ភាសាខ្មែរ ����� 한국어 Къарачай-малкъар ����� / کٲشُر Ripoarisch Kurdî Kernowek Кыргызча Latina Ladino Lëtzebuergesch Лакку Лезги Lingua Franca Nova Luganda Limburgs Ladin Lumbaart Lingála ��� Lietuvių Latgaļu Latviešu Madhurâ ������ Basa Banyumasan Malagasy Māori Minangkabau Македонски ������ Монгол ����� Bahasa Melayu Malti Mirandés မြန်မာဘာသာ مازِرونی Dorerin Naoero Nāhuatl Napulitano Plattdüütsch Nedersaksies ������ Nederlands Norsk nynorsk Norsk Novial ߒߞߏ Diné bizaad Chi-Chewa Occitan ����� Ирон ������ Picard Deitsch Pälzisch Norfuk / Pitkern Polski Piemontèis Ποντιακά پښتو Português Rumantsch Romani čhib Kirundi Română Armãneashti Русский Русиньскый ��������� Саха тыла Sardu Sicilianu Scots سنڌي Davvisámegiella Sängö Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး ����� Simple English Slovenčina Slovenščina Gagana Samoa Anarâškielâ ChiShona Soomaaliga Shqip Српски / srpski Sranantongo SiSwati Sesotho Sunda Svenska Kiswahili Ślůnski ����� ���� ������ Tetun Тоҷикӣ ��� Tagalog Türkçe Татарча/tatarça ChiTumbuka Twi ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche Українська اردو Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча Vèneto Tiếng Việt West-Vlams Volapük Walon Winaray Wolof 吴语 ייִדיש Yorùbá Zeêuws 中文 文言 Bân-lâm-gú 粵語 IsiZulu Edit links This page was last edited on 27 January 2021, at 12:28.All structured data from the main, Property, Lexeme, and EntitySchema namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License ; text in the other namespaces is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Privacy policy About Wikidata Disclaimers Mobile view Data access Developers Statistics Cookie statement Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
© 2014-2021 ЯВИКС - все права защищены.
Наши контакты