Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit

Presenting data in a more tabular format

When larger datasets of information are placed in wikidata, it usually results in an item page that scrolls forever, see COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia (Q87483673), which has six large properties with hundreds of values, one for each day. Completely valuable I think, but viewing the data on wikidata isn't great.

At the top of item and property pages, there's usually the big table of languages, showing the name of it in various languages, it's a much neater table.

Why don't we have that as an option to display large amounts of data? In the above example, a table labelled number of deaths (P1120) would have a column labeled point in time (P585), with the values in each row, and a column labelled "Quantity", which is the data type of number of deaths (P1120). And if you mouse-over/click a quantity cell, you could see the references, or other qualifiers that haven't been given their own column. Thoughts on how large datasets should be presented? Supertrinko (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:Category:Tabular data. Wostr (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Tabular data is a completely failed experiment: established 2016, only ~150 categories, probably fewer than a couple of thousand datasets, no meaningful support for using the data. It's not an answer to the question posed.
fwiw, historically it's been the case that WD items have been considered unsuited to storing large tabular datasets, because large item sizes (Q87483673 is 4.3 meg, ~2000 statements) caused report server lag at RDF serialisation time. Not sure if a recent-ish change in serialisation overcomes this issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I was adding references and needed to add the article with DOI 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280 but refrained because it has 2,929 authors! Will there be quasi-permanent limits to Wikidata? --SCIdude (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tabular data is essentially the feature that does this. On the other hand, the tooling around it isn't that great and we haven't used it as much. Maybe we need some gadget to display tables inline in Wikidata? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i think there's a few unrelated questions here that are being conflated. how can we improve how data is stored to make it more efficient? and how can we render the data in a more usable manner? they can be worked on independently but doing the latter without a plan for the former seems unwise. a simple solution to the original problem of " six large properties with hundreds of values" though would be just to collapse sections with more than $N values to keep the UI usable BrokenSegue (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Collapsible properties should be set by default...
A kind workaround to presenting tabular data was greatly made by https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:WE-Framework Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 19:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Iranian entities (Herat)

Mehri Heravi (Q6400736) and Bibi Heravi (Q27825630) have place of birth (P19) set to Herat (Q45313) (Afghanistan) but I think the right item would be Herat (Q2438142) (Iran). Could someone help to verify this? MarioGom (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:4nn1l2 is the expert. --E4024 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: Nope. They are correct. The famous Herat (now in Afghanistan) was part of Iran (actually Persia) until 180 years ago. See w:Siege of Herat (1837–1838). Another source of confusion my be the name of Iran which is a rather new term in English and other European languages. The former name of the country was Persia. Both of these poets are actually Persian, not Iranian. Persian is both an ethnicity and a language. Calling these ancient figures Iranian is anachronistic and somewhat ridiculous, as there was no nation-state named Iran back then. Geographically, they were from w:Khorasan; ethnically and lingually, they were Persian. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4nn1l2: Thank you for the detailed explanation! MarioGom (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated "one of" constraint

I see several such claims at some properties. E.g. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P105&action=history. Do they really help for suggestions? Do they really create violations? --Infovarius (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After my removal no ranks are suggested, but the massive constraint violations are gone. --Succu (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecated constraints are (correctly) ignored by the constraint checking gadget, but KrBot still lists them.
See Help:Property_constraints_portal/Entity_suggestions_from_constraint_definitions and Help:Suggesters_and_selectors about the suggestions from contraints (even deprecated) and suggesters in general. --- Jura 09:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Constraints should not misused as suggestions. This is a bad practice. A new property should be created for this purpose. --Succu (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could file a phab request if you think it should be changed. --- Jura 19:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for preferred rank

When filling out reason for preferred rank (P7452), what is the difference between generally used form (Q71538638) and most frequent value (Q74524855)?

I'm describing a place that has a bunch of different architectural styles (architectural style (P149)), but with two the most predominant that I've ranked as preferred, and I'm not sure which of those reasons to go with, or if editorial choice (Q71535331) or no preferred rank at all would be better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Since generally used form (Q71538638) is a facet of name (Q82799) and is generally used for preferred names or pseudonyms of humans, I'd say this is not applicable here. If two styles are predominant in that place, I'd use most frequent value (Q74524855). —192.198.151.51 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that's what I've gone with! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to prevent people from making mess (wrong merges)?

When I already fix some items accoding to Wikipedia content or redirects: split, connect or replace with redirects they are messed or merged again after some weeks or months. How to prevent it? They don't care it is two different things/mereaning they only want to link their article with wrong content. Some examples:

  • Sample ≠ sampling
  • Partition ≠ Partitioning
  • Aston Martin in Formula One ≠ Aston Martin F1 Team

I can list many more. Eurohunter (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding different from (P1889) with a qualifier criterion used (P1013) having an appropriate value, to both items, might help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: I don't know which criterion used (P1013) add for different from (P1889). I only use different from (P1889) and people just ignore it because they don't know sample ≠ sampling and if they don't know it I have no idea how they arrived to Wikidata page and edit it yet. Eurohunter (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is just joke. They really can't even read. Eurohunter (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretending that you understand Indonesian and are able to tell which Indonesian descriptions are appropriate feels more problematic. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Indonesian of course and I didn't pretend to know it (never said it) but after editing Wikidata and Wikipedia I had a lot of contact with different latin languages and its characteristic so it is obvious case for me (not for everone else? "Konstruktor Formula Satu asal Jerman" - what else it can mean expect "Formula One constructor from Germany"? This is really simple - it just speaks by himself. I can compare texts and contexts in written articles and use other tools - I mean I don't really like when someone say something like "Pretending that you understand Indonesian" - I'm not blind - I have enough experience, knowledge to know and it's also the reason why I never try to edit Arabic or Japanese. I know there are more problematic sentences or words in every language which I'm not able to understand and I'm not trying to do more than I really can - in some cases of Wikidata items I can't even edit in my native language:) Eurohunter (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You accused an Indian user of not being able to read. That user might very well not speak English. Furthermore the user used the app and is not editing directly via Wikidata, so I'm not sure from where you take your conviction that the user saw your edit summary. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to model a job posting (Q356251)?

I am involved in a project — Towards an open, zoomable atlas for invasion science and beyond (Q107368720) — that is closely linked to WikiProject Invasion Biology (Q56241615) and currently has an open job posting (Q356251), so I tried to create an item for that: Q107368777. It looks like it was the first instance of (P31) of a job posting (Q356251), so I did not have much to go by in terms of the data model, and suggestions for improvements would thus be welcome. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the feedback. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to understand when an internet page was created?

Does anybody have the tools to tell me if this internet page is newer than our item Jahrein (Q99001082)? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The website has been around since at least 2016. However, Internet Archive's Way Back Machine has no copies of that specific page. That could mean it is an old page that has been missed or a newer page that hasn't been copied yet. I'm not sure what other methods are available for checking the age of the page, other than asking the site owner. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images on Wikidata

Heads up to all, I have opened a feature request ticket on Phabricator for some method of representing fair use images (e.g. non–public domain logos) on Wikidata. Feel free to share thoughts at the ticket. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems extremely premature. Do we have a consensus to allow fair use images on this project? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key problems with implementing fair use on this project is that many Wikimedia Projects use automatic imports of Wikidata images (actually Commons images associated with the Wikidata item). Allowing fair use on Wikidata also means allowing fair use on all of those other projects, where in many cases there is no right of fair use (we will effectively be creating copyright breaches in dozens of countries with the push of a button). To allow fair use here, we would have to disable or heavily modify the image distribution system to prevent fair use images from being distributed outside of Wikidata.
A second problem is that Wikidata use the CC0 licence as we are a project of raw data. Most/all information on Wikidata is not subject to copyright. If we start importing images (as we can't host fair use at Commons) then our entire licensing structure for contributions will need to be changed.
If you want to proceed with this, as a minimum it will require an RfC with contributions from multiple Wikimedia Projects. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the intention to host fair use images on Wikidata, or just link to the ones hosted on other projects? If it's the former, I'm not sure that's a good idea due to the issues raised by User:From Hill To Shore. But I don't have an issue with it if it's the latter. Actually, we already have non-free artwork image URL (P6500). --Stevenliuyi (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What discussion? If fair use was accepted at ENWP it can be accepted at any Wikimedia project because there is no reason to not do. @From Hill To Shore: "we will effectively be creating copyright breaches in dozens of countries with the push of a button" - it's totally not true. There is no difference in access to ENWP, DEWP, FRWP or any other WP from any location. Users from all over the world can upload fair use images to ENWP even in all locations where it's "illegal". Eurohunter (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Each wikimedia property makes its own rules on content, Eurohunter. Whilst fair use could be accepted on WD, it would require community consensus. No such consensus exists. (Nor is it likely, IMO). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: Commons provides a useful summary of the position at c:Commons:Fair use. There will be other pages around Wikimedia with similar explanations but that Commons page has already been translated into several languages, so is a rather convenient starting point. To implement fair use on Wikidata (beyond providing a link to external non-free content) we will need input from those Wikimedia projects who have refused to accept fair use. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: Better to encourage them to apply fair use right? There is no reason for them to not accept fair use - they just refused to accept fair use due to missunderstanding as users all over the world can upload fair use images to ENWP. Communisties decided in according to their local law which doesn't makes sense. Eurohunter (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you don't appear to understand the complexities of the situation. "Fair use" is an aspect of US copyright law and protects limited usage of copyrighted materials. Many (most?) legal jurisdictions in the world do not have similar legal protections. As English Wikipedia's servers are hosted in the USA, they are subject to US copyright law and copyright protections. However, if English Wikipedia's servers were moved to the UK then UK copyright law would apply and the "fair use" content would have to be deleted as the UK has no "fair use" law. Similarly, Wikimedia servers hosted in other countries have to obey the laws of their host country. Arguing on Wikidata (or any Wikimedia site) will do little good as Wikimedia does not set the law. Whether an individual outside of the USA has any legal protection in their home country when they upload a non-free image to English Wikipedia is something they have to determine themselves. In many cases I expect they are at a theoretical risk of prosecution (though whether any actual prosecutions materialise is a separate question). From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: What ąre you talking about? FRWP, DEWP, ESWP and all other versions has also servers located in the United States, on the same servers. Both ENWP and DEWP and other versions are located on the servers in the United States, Netherlands and Singapore. Eurohunter (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you are trying to argue this with me. A few people here have given you links to the policies and explanations. If you think the Wikimedia projects that don't accept non-free content are wrong, you are welcome to try to convince them otherwise. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: You didn't answer. What is "However, if English Wikipedia's servers were moved to the UK then UK copyright law would apply and the "fair use" content would have to be deleted as the UK has no "fair use" law." according to? You just told that ENWP has some seprate and the only Wikipedia servers in US are ENWP. It clearly isn't true. Eurohunter (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the servers being in the US makes them subject to US law. I then gave a hypothetical example of what would happen if the same servers were moved to the UK. If you don't believe me, then fine. If you want to try to convince the other Wikimedia Projects that they are wrong then that is also fine. If you want to continue this discussion, I would suggest that you include other editors. I won't be responding to you anymore on this topic. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: Okey but what is the point of hypothetical example if all Wikimedia projects including all languages are in same location in the US, Netherlands and Singapore? I just don't see point to mention that if fair use is not allowed somewhere so some Wikipedia versions are not allowed to use fair use. Eurohunter (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: Whether or not something is fair-use depends on how it's used. Using an image as part of a Wikipedia article can be fair use while at the same time hosting the same image alone on WikiCommons isn't fair-use. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last year there was a RFC concerning non-free content. There was no consensus to implement a non-free policy. Comments made in that RFC might be relevant to this discussion. --Shinnin (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welp, this got a fair bit more attention than I was anticipating, and some of the concerns here seem to be reacting to a proposal much bigger than what I'm actually seeking (partially my fault for not being more precise with the header language, and partly all of your faults for not reading the phab description as asked). To answer Stevenliuyi's question, it's the latter—my thought would just be for there to be a way to link to fair use images on another wiki, not host them here. As at the example I gave at the phab ticket, just like we link to Commons files, there should be a way to link to w:File:American_Airlines_logo_2013.svg for logo image (P154) at American Airlines (Q32396). We can debate about how precisely to implement, but to say that we don't want to document that piece of information would be to abandon our purpose as a knowledge base. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want that, then a new property along the lines of Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) or non-free artwork image URL (P6500) and which does not attempt to display the image would suffice. But if that's what you wanted, there would be no need for a phab ticket. I think you're backpeddling, but not very successfully. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: No, I read the phab ticket before responding. As you said there and have repeated here, you want to implement a similar mechanism to how Commons images are displayed (and not just a link as you half suggest now). Displaying fair use images here brings up the copyright issues. If we give a simple link, we are saying, "this other site offers an image that may be in breach of copyright law but that is their problem and your problem, we just have a link," while displaying a non-free image here says, "we have published an image that may be in breach of copyright law." In the latter case, as you are trying to implement, you need consensus to change fair use policy on Wikidata.
Similarly if the same mechanism for displaying Commons images is used but with a pointer to the English Wikipedia server, the risk of replicating the fair use image on other Wikimedia projects also materialises, which may breach their local policies on non-free images. A larger discussion would be needed before implementation to work out what parts of the Commons image display mechanism are replicated and which parts are locked down.
Your proposal to display the image is the key problem. If you just want a link, you can follow Tagishsimon's advice. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon, From Hill To Shore: Yikes. I just had to check that this isn't a redlink. At the phab description, I explicitly talked about linking the example, not displaying it. If you want to say I was sloppy in how I presented this, fine, fair enough. But to accuse me of backpedaling after I clarified my intent is a brazen breach of AGF and not helpful for moving the discussion forward. I'm not inclined to create a new property proposal given the reception here, but I hope someone else does so. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively we can repurpose non-free artwork image URL (P6500) for any non-free image of the subject (not necessarily artwork) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: That sounds like purposefully violating Wikidata consensus about what properties should exist. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb:To the extend that you are creating a Phabrictor ticket that asks to violate the property creation consensus, that's still bad. There's a place to discuss Wikidata policy and that isn't Phabrictor. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: You stated this discussion was "partly all of your faults for not reading the phab description as asked." That could be read as an accusation of bad faith (though probably not your intention). I explained that I had read your description and what your request actually says by requesting the same functionality as Commons images (what it says and what you intended may not be the same). I have not accused you of bad faith editing or of backpedalling, so including me in the ping where you make your own reference to AGF is puzzling. You repeated again in your reply above your intention that we implement this "just like we link to Commons files." My reply was saying that implementing this in the same way as Commons is the core of the problem. Any link here must be made in a different way to Commons or else we need to debate fair use. Rather than continue to talk about good faith or bad faith editing, I'd suggest drawing a line under this and moving on. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should states have new entries when they become a constituent state?

Look at the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia vs Newfoundland and Labrador. There is one entry for Nova Scotia (Q1952), which is tagged as instance of (P31)crown colony (Q1351282) with an end date and instance of (P31)province of Canada (Q11828004) with a start date. Whereas Newfoundland and Labrador has separate entries for its time as Newfoundland Colony (Q2984260), Dominion of Newfoundland (Q38610), and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (Q2003). Which of these is the right approach? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Newfoundland and Labrador is the best approach. Pmt (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arctic.gnome: In general if a more than a few statements would have different values under the different circumstances, then two (N) items are preferable (otherwise you have to add start/end dates to them all); in such cases the items should link to one another with appropriate replaced by (P1366)/replaces (P1365) statements. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation items following page moves

I recently retitled the human name disambiguation page en:w:Kenny Casey to en:w:Kenneth Casey (disambiguation). There appear to be no entities named "Kenny Casey" on Wikidata in any language, save for the disambiguation page. Should Q17129502 be renamed, and thus every label changed from Kenny to Kenneth (and is there a tool to do this all at once besides tedious copy-paste)? Or should a new disambiguation item be created? -Animalparty (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: Create a new disambiguation page item for "Kenneth Casey", and move the sitelink there. Wikimedia human name disambiguation page items without sitelinks will appear at Wikidata:Database_reports/to_delete/empty_human_name_disambiguation_items, and an administrator will delete them at some point. --Shinnin (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. Kenneth Casey (Q107386461). -Animalparty (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bullying (harassment)

‎2001:7d0:81da:f780:81ca:5fa0:3839:7a83, 2001:7d0:81da:f780:9130:432c:2be2:221e, 2001:7d0:81da:f780:9130:432c:2be2:221e
Is editing 'IMA status and/or rank (P579)'. I feel being bullied.
I used a tool: 'auxiliary status: published before 1959'. I changing it to 'described by source (P1343)'. My editing capacity is limited. Let's say 250,000 edits in seven years.
He/She cites the IMA list of minerals as 'grandfathered minerals were first described prior to 1959'. But this is a letter of intent, no decision was made for most of the minerals.
Most minerals were grandfathered with the following publication: IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007)
I do not know if he/she is blocked, as his/her IP number is changing.
Note: Michael Fleischer/USGS had a list of valid minerals, but this is a USGS list and not a IMA/CNMNC list. IMA/CNMNC, Ernest H. Nickel and Ernst A. J. Burke published a list of valid minerals only on March 2007. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.urs-o: If you would like other editors to look into this, it would be useful if you can provide links to items where the situation has arisen. Also, if you believe this has developed to the point of bullying/harrassment, you should open a discussion on the Administrator noticeboard. This Project Chat page can help with editing problems and disputes but for a serious claim of bullying should be looked at by an administrator. I'll open a discussion on the administrators board now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minerals grandfathered since 2007?

I think lately the main editorial disagreement on IMA statuses has been about start time qualifier under grandfathered status (edits like [1], [2], [3]). Some third opinions on it would be nice and so I'm opening a subtopic about it here. For reference, I've tried to discuss/explain the issue more thoroughly in user talk, among some related issues.

Chris.urs-o seems to suggest that most (or all) grandfathered minerals are grandfathered since 2007 based on publication time of IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007) (Q20645057). This source however doesn't say anything explicit about statuses of particular grandfathered (G) minerals before 2007, i.e. whether status was/should be considered different before. Also, IMA (International Mineralogical Association (Q268771)) started to apply mineral statuses around its creation decades earlier, and grandfathered mineral is defined in prefaces of IMA mineral lists (latest version) as a mineral that was grandfathered (i.e. generally considered valid) as of the establishment of the IMA in 1958. "Start time: 2007" contradictingly suggest that minerals were grandfathered as of 2007. Earlier Chris.urs-o oneself also referred to another source[1], where it explicitly says that minerals were considered grandfathered before 2007, and per which "grandfathered mineral" isn't some new category coined retrospectively in 2007. So to me it seems rather straightforward that "start time: 2007" qualifiers for grandfathered status should be omitted as unsubstantiated.

There are also some other issues with IMA statuses, in their current form on Wikidata, which I think would also benefit from some wider attention (see Property talk:P579#Review current values). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:9986:EB9D:4E0A:82F8 09:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

snow volleyball (Q15728017)

We need a "player" thingy (property?) for snow volleyball (Q15728017). I am afraid I cannot make this. Can someone do the favour? Thx. --E4024 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean an equivalent to beach volleyball player (Q17361156)? --Gymnicus (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why can't you make it?BrokenSegue (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
snow volleyball player (Q107392205) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I said "I cannot make this" 'cause I thought it was not a Q. My bad. --E4024 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar wind emitted by Sun is called solar wind (Q79833)

Me and Ruslik0 were discussing the revert of my edit to solar wind (Q79833). We struggle to find consensus, which I think calls for input from others. What are your thoughts about using qualifiers in this way? —192.198.151.51 20:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit makes perfect sense to me. Whether or not there is a better qualifier is another thing, but if solar wind is specifically stellar wind originating from Sol then that should be modelled in the data like you say. --SilentSpike (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and restored the original edit. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata list

Hello. I need help with {{Wikidata list}}. See User:Data Gamer/Check.

1) Column "Πληθυσμός (2011)" (means population). Some items have not population for 2011. I want the query not to show anything there. I want the column to list only the population of 2011 for each item, if the population of 2011 exist for that item.

2) In Greek Language, there is stress (Q181767). The problem exists in column "Ονομασία". If the name starts with a letter that takes ' (for example, Ά, Έ, Ή) then that names are first in the list, and the alphabet order in wrong. That is not a problem in my wikidata list but it's a problem when I am using the same list in Greek Wikipedia. w:el:Επαρχία Λάρνακας#Πληθυσμός, έκταση και υψόμετρο ανά δήμο/κοινότητα.

Thanks. Data Gamer play 22:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate entry

I hope this is an appropriate place for a merge request.

These two entries are about the same person, the one and only husband of Duchess Elisabeth Sophie of Mecklenburg (Q448131):

  1. Augustus the Younger, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Q61963)
  2. Auguste II Herzog von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (Q76328400)

The two entries should be merged, or the latter entry simply deleted and only the first one kept.

Sincerely, Moldur (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the latter entry is based on a "peerage" site which itself claims as its source - Wikipedia! Unfortunately, that site did not check that it already had an entry for duke August and it thus created a duplicate, and later this duplicate entry was, again without checking, imported into Wikidata, making duchess Elisabeth Sophie look like a bigamist. - Moldur (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete entries when there are duplicate entries but merge them to allow people who link to either item (maybe from outside of Wikidata) to find the correct one. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Moldur: See Help:Merge, which will tell you how to make this merge yourself. Feel free to ask again here if you get stuck or want a second opinion on whether a merge is the correct answer. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will study that link and see if I can do that merge myself. - Sincerely, Moldur (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Item edit request

Please add “Finland” in Wikipedia entries on Finland (Q33), language code is dag. --62.18.11.223 17:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T285919 is blocking this for now. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wider usage of P789?

Hi! Could edibility (P789) have a wider usage than mushrooms alone? I have placed this taxon is source of (P1672) on a number of instances of taxon (Q16521) to record that the item is a source of an plant as food (Q9323487). P789 would allow a better way to differenciate between items with more or less edibility, but perhaps it is a complex task to use it that way? The property is interconnected with a template used in many wikipedias. -- Abuluntu (👨🏼‍💻💬) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it too vaguely defined? I mean you can eat many things, even poisonous substances. You can only recommend them for eating if they are nontoxic, which is way better defined. --SCIdude (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there should be a different usage, make a proposal what you think the scope of the property should be. Then raise the issue on the talk page of the property, and ping all people that were involved in the property proposal and mention it here.
Given that it does used in template it's useful to understand whether those templates get only used on mushrooms or also elsewhere. It's also worth investigating whether there's an organization that has already standardized edibility of plants, so that we might copy their approach. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-linguistic content

What is code for Non-linguistic content like mul and und for "many languages" and "unknown language"? Eurohunter (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: "zxx" --Bluemask (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluemask: Thanks. It should be described somewhere. Eurohunter (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #475

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship:
  • Events
    • Past:
      • Wikipedia Weekly Network - LIVE Wikidata editing #49 - YouTube
    • Upcoming:
      • SPARQL queries live on Twitch in French by Vigneron, July 6 at 18:00 CEST (UTC+2)
  • Tool of the week
    • User:Nikki/AnchorLinks.js is a userscript that adds a small link before property labels and statement values on entity pages to provide a clickable/copiable link to that section of the page.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • A job opening for a fullstack developer to work on integrating Wikidata with expert-curated knowledge on invasion biology
  • Development
    • Mismatch Finder: We continued the work on building the basic store that in the future will hold mismatches between Wikidata's data and other databases/websites/catalogs/... These mismatches will then be used in the Mismatch Finder website and other tools to easily review them.
    • Improved the namespace behavior of the CommonsLink constraint so that it now produces less false positives (phab:T237920)
    • Working on adding a magic word to allow pages to be excluded from Special:UnconnectedPages on Wikipedias and co (phab:T97577)
    • Language names in Scots (sco) were updated (phab:T285076)
    • A task to complete language names in Dutch (nl) is being filled (phab:T231748)
    • A language code for an undetermined Mixtec language is being determined (phab:T155419)

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.


Google Knowledge Graph ID

Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671). "To find the Google Knowledge Graph ID, open the page source and look after "/g/XXXX" where XXXXX is the ID" - so where is it? I don't see anything like "/g/" in search result. Eurohunter (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's not always there unfortunately. you can however click the share icon in the infobox, copy the shortened share URL and then go to it. Then in the URL of the browser you will see something like "kgmid=/m/XXXXX" or "kgmid=/g/XXXXX". Yeah it's not easy. We did have a bot going around populating them for us. We probably should have it setup to run periodically. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add it to description in some way? What to do if there is no infobox or there is "wrong item" in the infobox? Eurohunter (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFPNI author ID

I request adding an "IFPNI author ID" property to International Fossil Plant Names Index (Q60315739), in the same way as the equivalent IPNI author ID (P586) in International Plant Names Index (Q922063). The IFPNI item already includes an IFPNI species ID (P6341) property for taxon names of species, but none for the authors of those taxon names. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Item validation criteria

Hello folks,

TL;DR: what do you think of the 3 validation criteria below?

I'm excited to let you know that the soweego 2 project has just started: m:Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego_2. To cut a long story short, soweego links Wikidata to large third-party catalogs.

The next step will be all about synchronization of Wikidata to a given target catalog through a set of validation criteria. Let me paste below some key parts of the project proposal:

  1. existence: whether a target identifier found in a given Wikidata item is still available in the target catalog;
  2. links: to what extent all URLs available in a Wikidata item overlap with those in the corresponding target catalog entry;
  3. metadata: to what extent relevant statements available in a Wikidata item overlap with those in the corresponding target catalog entry.

These criteria would respectively trigger a set of actions. As a toy example:

  1. Elvis Presley (Q303) has a MusicBrainz identifier 01809552, which does not exist in MusicBrainz anymore.
    Action = mark the identifier statement with a deprecated rank;
  2. Elvis Presley (Q303) has 7 URLs, MusicBrainz 01809552 has 8 URLs, and 3 overlap.
    Action = add 5 URLs from MusicBrainz to Elvis Presley (Q303) and submit 4 URLs from Wikidata to the MusicBrainz community;
  3. Wikidata states that Elvis Presley (Q303) was born on January 8, 1935 in Tupelo, while MusicBrainz states that 01809552 was born in 1934 in Memphis.
    Action = add 2 referenced statements with MusicBrainz values to Elvis Presley (Q303) and notify 2 Wikidata values to the MusicBrainz community.

In case of either full or no overlap in criteria 2 and 3, the Wikidata identifier statement should be marked with a preferred or a deprecated rank respectively.

Please note that Soweego_bot already has an approved task for criterion 2, together with a set of test edits. In addition, we performed (then reverted) a set of test edits for criterion 1.

I'm glad to hear any thoughts about the validation criteria, keeping in mind that the more generic the better.

Stay tuned for more rock'n'roll! With love --Hjfocs (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=1455007882"