New Text Document

Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
Wikidata:Project chat
Revision as of 22:00, 15 December 2020 by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk |
contribs) (→Obalky knih.cz: new section)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
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
Frequently asked questions.
Requests for deletions.
Merging instructions.
Other places to connect
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Wikidata Telegram group
Start a new discussion
Afrikaans ‫ العربية‬беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца) български Banjar বাংলা brezhoneg
bosanski català ‫ کوردی‬čeština словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ dansk Deutsch Zazaki
dolnoserbski Ελληνικά English Esperanto español eesti ‫ فارسی‬suomi føroyskt français
Nordfriisk galego Alemannisch ગુજરાતી ‫ עברית‬हिन्दी hrvatski hornjoserbsce magyar
հայերեն Bahasa Indonesia interlingua Ilokano íslenska italiano 日本語 Jawa ქართული
қазақша ಕನ್ನಡ 한국어 kurdî Latina lietuvių latviešu Malagasy Minangkabau македонски
മലയാളം मराठी Bahasa Melayu Mirandés ‫مازرونی‬
ِ Nedersaksies नेपाली Nederlands norsk bokmål
norsk nynorsk occitan ଓଡ଼ିଆ polski português Runa Simi română русский Scots
davvisámegiella srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски සිංහල Simple English slovenčina
slovenščina shqip српски / srpski svenska ślůnski தமிழ் తెలుగు ไทย Tagalog Türkçe
українська ‫ اردو‬oʻzbekcha/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 2020/12.
Project
chat
Translators'
noticeboard
Bot
requests
Lexicographical
data
Request
a query
Requests
for permissions
Interwiki
conflicts
Administrators'
noticeboard
Requests
for deletions
Property
proposal
Bureaucrats'
noticeboard
Development
team
Requests
for comment
Properties
for deletion
Requests
for checkuser
Contents
1 Agriculture
2 Cleaning up old model for US Senate data
3 Linking a redirect?
4 Doubts about mobile phones
5 Fixing position held (P39) claims for historical US House of Representatives
delegates
6 Mendeley Profiles will be deprecated
7 How do I change the rank of a qualifier? How do I assign references to
particular qualifiers?
8 Object with more than one role with conflicting properties
9 Property...MediaAppearance...
10 Wikidata:Requests for permissions/SPARQL endpoint
11 WikiCite question
12 Finally fixing the Bonnie and Clyde problem
13 How to make redirects in main namespace?
14 Why can't I find lexemes in the statement value search box?
15 List of all avaiable language codes
16 Dates related to appointments
17 Encyclopedia article items
18 What reference source is the most deprecated
19 Recon service is down.
20 Which Wikiprojects is responsible for GeoNames (Q830106) issues
21 /header's, /footer's, and the exclusion criteria
22 Help wanted for one single data structuring...
23 Tiktoker
24 WikiProject Territorial Entities
25 Clause or provision in a law
26 Community Wishlist Survey 2021
27 Newbie question
28 A problem on Q1922067
29 Archivio Storico Ricordi
30 Green Map icons
31 Political Graveyard
32 Can we automate the deprecation of less precise birth and death dates
33 User:Paptilian , Scope of contributions which need experience, data structure
tutorials, global interaction
34 Hoping this is not out of line...
35 Help with mapframe
36 Protection on Q557839
37 New property navbox
38 Currencies : start date and end date
39 How are these 2 items different - to be merged?
40 Q441 Arabic aliases are disruptive
41 Wikidata weekly summary #446
42 Alma Claude Burlton Cull
43 Merge?
44 Merge IDs Távora (Tabuaço)
45 Obalky knih.cz
Agriculture
We haven’t focused much energy on building out our coverage of agriculture. There
are lots of opportunities for merges, multilingual labels, external ids, etc. in
the areas of agricultural tools and processes. Is anyone interested in a formal
WikiProject:Agriculture? If not, I’ll putter along. - PKM (talk) 22:01, 28 November
2020 (UTC)
@PKM: I looked at the profession tree from farmer (Q131512) last year - some
discussion at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/05#Farmers_and_agriculturers?. But
I didn't manage to do much with the underlying field itself, and I found there was
a lot of cross-language complexity to tease out (eg in some "farming" can primarily
indicate arable, in others pastoral+arable). Definitely worth looking at. Andrew
Gray (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Thanks for that link. We had a longish conversation on Commons
Telegram recently about classifying types of hoes - this is an area with lots of
overlapping sets across languages and cultures. (I notice Getty AAT has at least
one term that is specifically Spanish-Chile.) I think we’d need a large team of
participants to really make headway. - PKM (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@PKM:: I would be interested in exploring this more. Just wondering, is there a
case for starting a WikiProject and seeing who adds themselves? Pauljmackay (talk)
15:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@PKM: Sorry for the delayed reply - if you do try and put together a project
working on this, please do give me a shout. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:46, 10 December
2020 (UTC)
@Pauljmackay, Andrew Gray: Okay, I'll set up a starter site and see who wants to
play! Watch this space. - PKM (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Pauljmackay, Andrew Gray: New project page at Wikidata:WikiProject Agriculture. -
PKM (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Cleaning up old model for US Senate data
As suggested here by @MisterSynergy:, I plan on removing position held (P39) United
States senator (Q4416090) which do not supply a term. The only information
contained in such statements not contained in those which do supply a parliamentary
term (P2937) was spotty and occasionally inaccurate. The statements which do supply
a parliamentary term (P2937) contain the complete historical record (excluding the
results of the most recent election). Still to do is to supply elected in (P2715)
but that is pending an organization of election in the United States (Q279283)
which should distinguish between scheduled general elections and unscheduled
elections in a rational way and perhaps have a clear model to indicate midterm
elections. I'll probably do this work at the end of next week if there are no
objections. Regards, Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: @Oravrattas: @Andrew Gray:
So you want to delete the information about the current senators?

Can you provide us with a sample edit? How do you make sure that other data is
complete?
As this provides us with a way of querying the current composition of the senate
(e.g. position holder with a start date, but no end date), I don't think it's a
good idea to delete these statements before you fixed the other statements
(deleting fictive dates, as previously mentioned).
To sum it up: No data should be deleted before we can check the same information is
available otherwise. --- Jura 05:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
current members. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gettinwikiwidit: Looks good, but I have also been wondering about end dates.
Sitting senators in the current term all have their end dates set to 3 January 2021
(except two no-P582, oddly), and presumably once we index the next term, they would
get 2021-23 dates. However, there's a widespread convention to indicate positions
which are currently held by setting start time (P580) but not end time (P582)
qualifiers, even if a future end date can be predicted with some confidence. A lot
of queries use this as shorthand ("presence of a P582 = not current") in much the
same way that a birthdate but no deathdate is used to infer "person is alive". So
I'd agree with dropping P582 qualifiers on the current members, which will make a
traditional-assumptions query like this one predictably return sitting members with
new-style data. (If we do have a need to use predicted end dates, we can pick that
up easily enough by querying the end date of the term itself.)
Otherwise, definitely happy to remove all the "old-style" single statements. And
then I think we'll have a pretty much consistent dataset, give or take a bit of
error correction - congratulations! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2020
(UTC)
@Andrew Gray: I'm agnostic about end time (P582)s. I think it's always up to the
person generating the query to be careful in interpreting the data since anyone can
edit the data set. When the full data set was generated they all had an end time
(P582). When I first started looking at the data in the old model it was also
inconsistent and I had to figure out how to deal with future end dates. Deleting
them now just means they will need to be added again in a couple of months. If
someone leaves early the end time (P582) will have to be edited either way. As long
as the future date can reasonably be assured I think supplying it is a defensible
position. I think leaving them out is also defensible. Further, I don't own this
data. I'm not sure who's job it will be to add the end date in the future. That
person is free to remove them now to make work for themselves in the future.
Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It is yet more making it up as you go along, Gwwi. There are not distinct
districts. 'end date' != 'anticipated end date'. Your caveat reporter point is
absolutely the case if the content of statements bears little resemblance to the
plain intent of the properties. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: It's not clear what value is added by turning this into a trading of
insults. It's a fact that this is a volunteer effort. With that comes realities
that need to dealt with. From a process stand point it's not clear that future
dates will ever be added. Having them there when they're reasonably predictable
means it's more likely to *remain* accurate in the future. My guess is that people
jumping on all the "popular pages" will hand edit them to keep them up-to-date but
the rest will be left to rot. No future dates are ever realized. If it were really
a problem they could simply make it impossible to supply them. Gettinwikiwidit
(talk) 22:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Not for nothing, but harassing people contributing data makes it even less likely
that they'll put in the effort to maintain it which further makes the case for
having them there. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gettinwikiwidit: Personally, I would say the benefits of consistency here probably
outweigh the minor hassle of having to update it in a few weeks (especially since
we'll have do do a batch of edits then anyway to get all the new members in place,
so closing off the older ones isn't much extra work). I'm happy to put a note in
the calendar and take responsibility for sorting that out in January. Andrew Gray
(talk) 23:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: From a process standpoint this seems like unnecessary busy work for
the reasons outlined above, but as I say, I'm agnostic on the topic. Feel free to
remove them now and add them back in later. In any event this has no bearing on the
topic at hand of removing the old, inconsistent and occasionally inaccurate claims.
Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure - I'll run this tomorrow if it won't cause any problems for you. (didn't want
to blunder in and do it if it would complicate the ongoing work!) No objection to
removing the older data, as noted. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
As suggested, I've now removed the end time (P582) values for sitting Senators
which were set as 3 January 2021. This query confirms a simple question for
"Senators with a known start time but no P582" returns 100 distinct people as
expected - most are matching both the new and old statements, but it also works
with only the new-style ones using parliamentary term (P2937). Andrew Gray (talk)
19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your cleanup, Andrew. I think we really need to be careful to avoid
speculative end dates. Senators are not immortal nor should we include user's
predictions. If one wants to check when a term ends, that should be on the item for
the term itself. I noticed that finally deceased senator(s) are no longer marked as
being "in office" at Wikidata either.
As for the initial proposal, can we see a static list of claims to be deleted?
Otherwise, once deleted, there is just no way of checking if what was done meets
was proposed or agreed. --- Jura 17:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Broadly speaking it will be these claims, which are all on items that have a more
comprehensive set of statements. I am doing some manual checks at the moment to
ensure that where the old data has date qualifiers, they match up with the new data
- this will take a few more days. It won't be deleted until that's sorted. Andrew
Gray (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: It's odd that you make the point that senators are not immortal since
supplying and end date would seem to make exactly that case. In fact if no one
maintains the data going forward you might be lead to believe that the senators
term never ended. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
──────────────────┘
Quick update: manual checks complete, and these are now ready to be deleted (list,
1896 statements). I've run a report comparing all of the existing statements with
start/end dates against the new-style ones, manually fixing one or the other where
necessary, and they are now all look safe to move. The only remaining discrepancies
are down to an ambiguity over whether terms ended on 3 March or 4 March in the
early years and these will be fixed up when that's standardised in a seperate round
of edits. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'll delete the statements from this query tomorrow. Regards,
Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is done. Thanks again to @Andrew Gray: for all his help cleaning up the data
and cross-checking against the old model. Regards, Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 11:18, 11
December 2020 (UTC)
Linking a redirect?
I noticed that Four Seasons Total Landscaping (Q101248727) was successfully linked
to Wikipedia, even though the page on Wikipedia is a redirect to Four Seasons Total
Landscaping press conference (Q101424698). I'd like to do the same for some other
pages, such as Ruth Chandler Williamson Gallery (Q18325652) and w:Ruth Chandler
Williamson Gallery, but the documentation at w:Template:Wikidata redirect is
lacking and I can't escape the error message it keeps giving me when I try to make
the connection. Help? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
At the moment work on the ticket that allows easy creation is stalled
(@Mohammed_Sadat_(WMDE): might provide information on when this changes). In the
meantime you have to deactivate the redirect on the Wikipedia page shortly then set
the redirect in Wikidata (at a time where the Wikipedia page is not a redirect)
afterwards you can reedit the Wikipedia page to turn it into a redirect.
ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: There was an RfC to allow the addition of some redirects to items.
However, we need to make sure that people are aware of the consequences that change
will bring. Lydia wrote some more about that here. The next steps might not have
been clear there, but in order to move forward with the ticket that you referred,
we would like to have a look at the option to generate the links based on
statements first. For that, we’ll need to collect a few specific cases where people
want to link to redirects and then see which statements could provide a large
number of them without too much overhead. Who can help collect such a list?
-Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Mohammed Sadat (WMDE): @Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE): Whether or not sitelinks to
redirects are allowed seems to me like a policy question and thus up to the
community. Is it the WMDE position that it's not up to the community to decide on
policy like this? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: In what sense do you think the RfC that Mohammed Sadat linked to was
not an expression of the will of the community? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:41, 5
December 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I think it was an expression of the will of the community to use
sitelinks to redirects. Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk • contribs • logs) seems to
argue that we should disregard it and instead see whether we can archieve the
functionality of referercing redirects (or the pages they target) with mechanisms
other then sitelinks. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah. You're relying on a very specific definition of sitelink, then. Don't get me
wrong; if we are to have sitelinks to redirects, then having them in the same place
as existing language wiki links, and marked (and hence machine-distinguishable) in
much the way that we currently mark featured articles, would seem to be the way
forward. I'm not sure I've seen any articulation of why that approach is
technically problematic. Blessed if I know why Lydia launched into a riff on using
statements to generate redirect sitelinks (adding redirects seems to be something
users would do once the facility is provided) rather than addressing the question
of storage arrangements for the data. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2020
(UTC)
@Sdkb: If you would like this to be fixed, please vote for meta:Community Wishlist
Survey 2021/Wikidata/Link Wikipedia redirects to Wikidata items. Kaldari (talk)
03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Doubts about mobile phones
When reviewing the mobile phones data I have noticed some inconsistencies. With
this query:
SELECT DISTINCT ?phone ?phoneLabel ?instanceOf ?created ?published

WHERE {
{
# Mobile phone
?phone wdt:P279 wd:Q17517.
}
UNION
{
# Smartphone
}
UNION
{
# Phablet
}
UNION
{
# Basic cell phone
}
UNION
{
# Modular smartphone
}
UNION
{
# Dual SIM phone
}
UNION
{
# Dual SIM smartphone
}
?phone wdt:P31 ?instanceOf.
OPTIONAL { ?phone wdt:P577 ?published . }
OPTIONAL { ?phone wdt:P571 ?created . }
# Uncomment the following to show items that are not an instance of a
manufactured object (or that are instances of other things)
#FILTER(?instanceOf != wd:Q10929058).
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" }
}
Try it!
Two things can be observed:
Most phones are an instance of model (Q10929058) but more than 400 are instances of
one of the following items:
mobile phone form factor (Q2636061)
system (Q58778)
cell phone model (Q19723444)
mobile phone series (Q20488450)
electronic device model (Q62008942) (removed)
model series (Q811701) (removed)
electronic machine (Q2858615) (removed)
brand (Q431289)
Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) (this can be omitted as it is a valid
property)
What would be the correct value for instance of (P31)? I suppose model (Q10929058)
since it is in most of the phones but I don't know if there is a consensus about
it.
Isn't inception (P571) and publication date (P577) somewhat redundant? Using the
GSMArena phone ID (P4723) as a reference, I would think that the inception (P571)
corresponds to the moment the phone was announced and publication date (P577) would
be when it was released for sale, but from what I've been seeing it seems that both
properties are used indistinctly to indicate the date when the phone became
available to the public.--Swicher (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I'd go with model (Q10929058) for a single model and model series
(Q811701) for a family or models (which will have subclasses which are model
(Q10929058).) For the dates, I think the most relevant are announcement date
(P6949) and date of commercialization (P5204), since hardware isn't really
"published" and inception (P571) presumably predates any public announcement, but
is typically unknown. Ghouston (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Being both a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) and another page is generally
not valid. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A case like this needs thinking about how mobile phones be modeled and that model
written down in a Wikiproject where it can be discussed and referenced in the
future. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The following answer goes to both Ghouston and ChristianKl but it is easier for me
to make a single message instead of two separate ones for each one.
It seems to me that model (Q10929058) is quite generic compared to more descriptive
such as cell phone model (Q19723444) and smartphone model (Q19723451). In the case
of Samsung Galaxy A51 (Q84849860) it has all three values together but I don't know
if it should be kept like this or delete everything and leave only smartphone model
(Q19723451) as the value of instance of (P31). One way these properties could be
structured would be the following:
Basic cellphone/feature phone/dumbphone Smartphone Unknown
instance of (P31) cell phone model (Q19723444) smartphone model (Q19723451) cell
phone model (Q19723444)
subclass of (P279) feature phone (Q965424) smartphone (Q22645) mobile phone
(Q17517)
The unknown column would cover the phones that are not well known what type they
are (for example, when importing data) and the value model (Q10929058) could be
kept or removed/depreciated.
Other details that I noticed were the following:
There are some phones that are instances of Android One (Q18063397) (see a list in
Special:WhatLinksHere/Q18063397) but I think that it should be moved to a more
appropriate property (class (P2308) or family (P53) perhaps?).
Later I will start to change model series (Q811701) to mobile phone series
(Q20488450) in some items since this value is more descriptive. I will do it
manually since there seems to be normal phones mixed with the models. ✓ Done
With respect to the following items I have my doubts as to whether the subclass is
correct but I'm not sure what to replace it with:
clamshell design (Q1532758)
DIGNO (Q11195846)
Cocoa Touch (Q2628895)
Personal Handy-phone System (Q1718639)
Regarding dates, I agree with Ghouston's idea, but with QuickStatements can you
change inception (P571) to announcement date (P6949) and publication date (P577) to
date of commercialization (P5204) in all items automatically? Because according to
what I was seeing, this tool seems to only can be used to add or remove properties
but not to "rename" them keeping the original values.
About how the phone data should be modeled, the wikiprojects that could perhaps
cover this would be Electronic Components and Informatics but I don't think that
cell phones are its scope.
I also updated the query to include smartphone (Q22645) and feature phone (Q965424)
and a few days ago I was doing some cleaning on some items.--Swicher (talk) 13:38,
6 December 2020 (UTC)
I updated the query to include some additional elements and a few days ago I also
changed model series (Q811701) to mobile phone series (Q20488450) (or smartphone
model series (Q71266741)).
Regarding instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) I am not going to make major
modifications since there is no clear consensus on how this should be handled, the
only thing I found on this subject was the following discussions:
This talk in iPhone item
Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/09#Should iPhone 5s, model A1533 (Q66816688) be
linked to smartphone (Q22645) via subclass of (P279) or instance of (P31)
Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2020/05#Android smartphone model
--Swicher (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Fixing position held (P39) claims for historical US House of Representatives
delegates
The following items are listed as having position held (P39) United States
representative (Q13218630), but according to their entries in the Biographical
Directory of the United States Congress they were merely delegates for territories
not yet admitted to the Union. Should we have an explicit subclass of non-voting
member of the US House of Representatives (Q5253588) for such positions or simply
use this entity? Current delegates have entries like this.
Anthony Dimond (Q573153)

Antonio Borja Won Pat (Q600957)
Bob Bartlett (Q719965)
Charles August Sulzer (Q1063605)
Charles Debrille Poston (Q1064080)
Coles Bashford (Q882895)
Curtis Coe Bean (Q1145545)
Daniel D. Tompkins (Q223545)
Daniel Elliott Huger (Q1160550)
Daniel Sutherland (Q1162848)
Donna Christian-Christensen (Q461604)
Edward Dexter Holbrook (Q1292048)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (Q461649)
Elizabeth P. Farrington (Q1331285)
Eni Faleomavaega (Q729199)
Fofó Iosefa Fiti Sunia (Q3880333)
Francisco Perea (Q1384732)
Frank Hinman Waskey (Q1443435)
George Barnes Grigsby (Q1506947)
George W. Jones (Q438644)
Granville Henderson Oury (Q1543279)
Henry Dodge (Q881703)
Henry Hastings Sibley (Q880319)
Hiram Sanford Stevens (Q1620134)
James Wickersham (Q1681295)
John A. Burns (Q880606)
John Frank Wilson (Q1525522)
John G. Campbell (Q1700145)
Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole (Q1702876)
Joseph Rider Farrington (Q1263994)
Madeleine Bordallo (Q292988)
Marcus A. Smith (Q1894073)
Melvin H. Evans (Q2819651)
Michael San Nicolas (Q16221559)
Napoleon Bonaparte Giddings (Q1964936)
Norton P. Chipman (Q2819666)
Oakes Murphy (Q889353)
Orrin Dubbs Bleakley (Q7104081)
Ralph H. Cameron (Q976300)
Robert A. Underwood (Q2156310)
Robert D. Carey (Q436936)
Robert William Wilcox (Q1133170)
Ron de Lugo (Q2819582)
Samuel Gordon Daily (Q2218316)
Stacey Plaskett (Q18739104)
Thomas Cale (Q1741474)
Thomas D. Singleton (Q2423319)
Vicente T. Blaz (Q2819706)
Victor O. Frazer (Q2522517)
Walter E. Fauntroy (Q2819659)
William Woodbridge (Q883246)
Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
In the short term, I've made these all non-voting member of the US House of
Representatives (Q5253588). I personally would rather see all entries like Victor
O. Frazer (Q2522517) use the same position held (P39) claim and use located in the
administrative territorial entity (P131) to refer to which territory they
represent, but my immediate concern is not to co-ingle these entries with United
States representative (Q13218630) to make it easier to do a proper reconciliation
of the latter. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I think there are three questions:
(1) are they representatives? The answer is probably no, so non-voting member of
the US House of Representatives (Q5253588) shouldn't a subclass of United States
representative (Q13218630).
(2) is a specific position with just members from different territories? If the
answer is yes, non-voting member of the US House of Representatives (Q5253588)
shouldn't have any subclasses. If they vary, we should probably have subclasses.
(3) has the situation for (1) or (2) changed over time? If not, just one approach
is sufficient.
--- Jura 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Mendeley Profiles will be deprecated

See https://blog.mendeley.com/2020/11/02/weve-listened-to-our-users-and-are-
refocusing-on-whats-important-to-them/. The property is Mendeley person ID
(P3835).--GZWDer (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
we should archive them all and not delete the property. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:29, 6
December 2020 (UTC)
I archived about half of them on archive.org before they closed down the system in
the last few days. I'm marking the property deprecated. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:06,
How do I change the rank of a qualifier? How do I assign references to particular
qualifiers?
For example, see Lucian Freud (Q154594) and Lucien Freud's marriage to Kathleen
Godley. I would want to change the full date of marriage to be a preferred rank,
and add the ODNB reference to it; add the ODNB reference to the number of children;
add the Who's Who reference to the end date etc. Piecesofuk (talk) 09:09, 8
December 2020 (UTC)
@Piecesofuk: For the first part, it's unfortunately not possible - qualifiers don't
have rank independent of the parent statement. In this case, I'd recommend only
using the more precise qualifier and dropping the more vague one, since it's mostly
redundant.
For the second, you could perhaps use applies to part (P518) on the reference? It's
not very frequently used on references, though there are a thousand or so examples.
I am sure I remember seeing a property proposal for some kind of "reference applies
to specific qualifier(s)" property a year or so back, but I have completely failed
to track down what happened to it. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Wikidata:Property proposal/Supports qualifier perhaps? A pity,
because somebody was asking me this weekend how to deal with just this use-case. (I
said you were a good person to discuss such things with). Jheald (talk) 17:20, 8
December 2020 (UTC)
@Jheald: That's the exact one, though for some reason I thought you were the
original proposer :-). It looks like the proposal mostly failed on a "not quite
clear what's being suggested" basis, so I wonder if it's worth resurrecting it with
some more detailed practical examples (this one would be a good one, in fact -
different sources for start, end, etc).
The item as currently shown has an end date of both 1957 and 1958, which points out
the other problem with qualifiers - we can't chain qualifiers onto other
qualifiers, so there's no way to eg say "circa" but only have it apply to end time,
not start time. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe with earliest end date (P8554) and latest date (P1326)? Ghouston (talk)
03:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Been looking into this a bit more and there seem to be more cases of this than I
thought - I make it 1813 items which have a "spouse" claim with two start dates,
1552 of which have both dates in the same year, and 1062 of which have the second
year be "year" precision. (Edit: another 47 which have the second date at month
precision, and both dates in the same month.) I think we could probably have a bot
remove all those last thousand qualifiers (two claims, same year, one claim is
year-precision only). Interestingly "spouse" seems to be a particular problem for
this - the same query on P39 claims only finds 127 examples. Andrew Gray (talk)
08:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Object with more than one role with conflicting properties
The question here is how to handle cases where one and the same thing has different
roles, where for each role some of the properties would have different values.
My current example: there are protected areas (nature protection) which are under
national protection (nature reserve (Q1627961)) and international protection
(Special Area of Conservation (Q1191622)) at the same time. It's exactly or nearly
the identical area, and of course it's covered by a single Wikipedia article and a
single Commons category. However, the national and internation protection have
different date of inception (P571), different WDPA ID (P809) und sometimes a
slightly different area (P2046).
When I asked in the German-speaking project chat I was told to make two distinct
Wikidata objects and connect them via territory overlaps (P3179). I tried that and
naturally wanted to have a Wikidata Infobox for both Wikidata items in the commons
Category, which yielded an error. Asking about that, I was told that the two items
should be merged and one of the protection status should be included as has parts
of the class (P2670), assigning all the properties of that protection status as
qualifiers to that property. Even though I don't like the asymmetry of the two
roles, and it seemed to me to contradict the intended semantics of has parts of the
class (P2670), I tried it and it led to warnings about properties not being allowed
as qualifiers.
So now I try to ask here, which I consider the "highest authority" for such
questions. I really wonder what's the correct way of handling such a situation.
When I thought about it further, I came to the conclusion that a possible solution
could be something similar to heritage designation (P1435), just for protection of
nature rather than protection of cultural heritage. A single object could have more
than one value for that property, and IDs like WDPA ID (P809), Natura 2000 site ID
(P3425), and Common Database on Designated Areas ID (P4762) should be allowed as
qualifiers. Probably we'd also want a qualifier like "affected area" or "protected
area" for cases where the exact protection area differs slightly.
What do you think? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
They must be different items here, its not possible to put all the data into
qualifiers of one statement. Take for example the area (P2046) - often the law
which created the protected area states one roundabout area, then later the map is
digitized and a slightly different value shows up, then eventually some parts are
added to the protected area, and there's another value with a different start time
(P580). If all is in one statement with lots of qualifiers, its impossible to show
different values with different references or different times. Its never a good
idea to model the data to fit with a technical limitation - maybe someone can
create a commons infobox with the item ID as parameter, and then its easy to show
both in one category. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Ahoerstemeier is right. Conflating multiple different entities into one item is
generally bad. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Property...MediaAppearance...
Hey folx - what is the good way to add a link to a web media appearance (online
published TV report) into Wikidata profile of a person? Zblace (talk) 15:17, 8
December 2020 (UTC)
present in work (P1441) would fit the bill, as far as I can tell. (It's a bit of a
mess, and I just tried to align the description(s) with the constraints)
You'd need some item for either the TV program (qualified with date and full work
available at URL (P953)) or the specific episode. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk)
02:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata:Requests for permissions/SPARQL endpoint
Somebody created this page, but I don't think this is a proper name -
Wikidata:Requests for permissions is for requesting specific user rights. Please
recommand a new name for the page.--GZWDer (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I guess Wikidata:Contact the development team/SPARQL endpoint would be better?

ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Zache: why are you duplicating Wikidata:SPARQL federation input? Multichill (talk)
19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Multichill: I was thinking that the page is permanently defunctional and a
replacement was needed. The last approval Wikidata:SPARQL federation input was from
June 2019 and the only comment after that was in November 2019. Currently, page
tagged with the text This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical
reference and there is no activity and there is also phab:T265290. In the very
minimal project chat discussion in October 2020 the only comment was by you with
something like bot approvals would be ok as a process. So this was my take on for
pushing things forward and I was going to take this to project chat too for the
comments after I had done the pages first. --Zache (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2020
(UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I dont have strong opinions on what the page names should be and any
name would be ok for me. --Zache (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC) (edited own
comment --Zache (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC))
@Zache: the problem laid out in the phab task is that we don't have a community
norms about adding new endpoints. Those community norms don't get created by
creating a new endpoint page. We have a policy for creating property proposals and
we need a similar policy for adding WDQS endpoints.
To write a good policy one, we need knowledge about the costs about WDQS endpoints.
The policy page on adding WDQS endpoints likely should explain that. After a policy
is written it should be approved via RFC. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:34, 9 December 2020
(UTC)
From the Wikidata:SPARQL federation input page the rules were:
The suggested SPARQL endpoints must satisfy the following conditions:
Complies with the SPARQL 1.1 protocol, "query operation" part, at least to the
extent necessary to make federated SERVICE clause work (most SPARQL endpoints do).
Contains data that can be linked to Wikidata - i.e., either contains Wikidata IDs
or can be queried by values contained in one of the Wikidata properties.
Has data freely available under license compatible with CC0 (preferred) or other
free database license allowing unrestricted reuse. Attribution licenses like CC-BY
are ok too. Currently, we do not accept endpoints with reuse restriction clauses
like NC/ND.
For the rule #3 it is proposed that if Wikimedia Commons accepts the license then
it would be ok. Least CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and ODbL are used in currently allowed
endpoints. Technically cost of adding on outside of the community discussion is
creating the phabricator ticket phab:T200066 and updating the whitelist. There may
be also technical limitations why Wikimedia tech wants to deny or postpone adding
new endpoints but reviewing that is outside of the community discussion scope and
this selection happens after community approval. In any case is there some reason
why these rules aren't enough for RfC and if not what we need more? --Zache (talk)
19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
WikiCite question
Can I add links as a QID for citations? For example, if I wanted to cite
https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/efe/2018/05/10/edificio-prestes-maia-
o-maior-simbolo-das-ocupacoes-na-america-latina.htm , could I do it? Tetizeraz
(talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Tetizeraz Yes, absolutely! For use here on Wikidata, it's more common not to use
references to use reference URL (P854) in the reference section. But you can also
create an item: see ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ Leads Saturn Awards Nominees
(Q24090324) for one of currently about 20,000 examples. Unfortunately, there isn't
any automation that I'm aware of. You would need to identify it as appropriate,
such as instance of (P31) article (Q103184) (or something more specific, such as
letter to the editor (Q651270), news article (Q5707594) etc.) and provide the URL
with full work available at URL (P953). I'm not familiar with how these are used on
other wikis, but on Wikidata, you'd then link to it with stated in (P248).
In principle, it is fairly easy to fill in additional information such as authors,
publication dates, and publication automatically, at least for professional
publications that cointain such data in the source code for search engines,
twitter, etc. (and title, as well, but you'd usually add that because the Item
creation form asks for it). With that in mind, and for use within Wikidata, I'd
tend to suggest to prioritize adding data that cannot be gathered automatically,
such as quotation (P1683) before creating additional items for the publication,
authors, etc. Opinions might differ on that, however. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk)
02:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Matthias Winkelmann something like this? Q104048129 Tetizeraz (talk) 06:23, 9
December 2020 (UTC)
Tetizeraz Yes, that is excellent! It's probably more detailed than the average item
for heads of state. Since I'm a fan of such overkill, I've added a few things, such
as creating an item for the author.
The one complaint the system had was the archive URL, which it expects as a
qualifier on the main URL. But the archive URL can always be derived if needed, so
it's not strictly neccessary. Most useful among the things I adde is probably main
subject (P921), because these can't be derived automatically, and it's something
that people are likely to search for. If you click on "What links here" on the
building's item, it now links the article, as well. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk)
11:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Finally fixing the Bonnie and Clyde problem
If you would like to see the Bonnie and Clyde problem finally fixed on Wikidata,
please go vote for Certes' proposal at meta:Community Wishlist Survey
2021/Wikidata/Link Wikipedia redirects to Wikidata items. This would allow us to
finally link to redirects without using an elaborate hack. (And yes, canvasing is
allowed for the Community Wishlist Survey.) Kaldari (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2020
(UTC)
I wrote a policy page that lays out how we will use the badges to tag redirect in
Wikidata and clarified remaining ambiguities. This is likely the more direct way to
get change. The RfC is at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_Help:SitelinksToR
edirects_as_policy . ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
How to make redirects in main namespace?
How do you make/edit redirects in main namespace? Take for examle, Q56167159, it
just says "Redirect to: Q37487459." However, Special:EditPage/Q56167159 doesn't do
anything, so how to make or edit redirects? --Rqkp (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2020
(UTC)
Redirects can be created using Special:RedirectEntity (I'm not sure whether it can
also change the target, you can try it) or as a result of merging by a tool.
--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
In general you don't create redirect manually. They are the result of merges and
mostly done automatically by the merge gadget. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:08, 9 December
2020 (UTC)
Why can't I find lexemes in the statement value search box?
I'm having trouble linking lexemes to each other using statements.
Here's the most recent issue: I've created a lexeme Lexeme:L347938 for the Irish
proverb "Georraíonn beirt bóthar." I want to link this lexeme to each of the three
individual words. I create a "Has part" property and search for "beirt", an
independent lexeme I know exists, and I can't find it. Searching by the lexeme
number, same. Nor does it come up searching the other way round (trying to add a
"part of" statement to Lexeme:L348027.
It looks to me like the search function in the statement interface isn't searching
the lexeme namespace--is there a way around this? --Chapka (talk) 15:40, 9 December
2020 (UTC)
@Chapka: the value of has part (P527) may only be items and this property is not
for lexemes. combines (P5238) is the correct property to use in lexeme. Note there
are no inverse property as a word (or affix) may be found in hundreds of phrases.--
GZWDer (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
List of all avaiable language codes
I remember there was all language codes but I forgot where it was. I will save it
this time. Eurohunter (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
You may be looking for Help:Wikimedia_language_codes/lists/all. Bovlb (talk) 00:42,

@Bovlb: Thanks. I think it was the other list but this one will be okey too.
Eurohunter (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Do you have idea how to add/use en-us? Eurohunter (talk) 12:19, 10 December
2020 (UTC)
Langcom opposed adding en-us and thus it's not available. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:12, 10
December 2020 (UTC)
Dates related to appointments
Hello, there. We have the appointed by (P748) property, but not an "appointed on"
leaving some ambiguity as to what start time (P580) is referring to. Take Kirsten
Gillibrand (Q22222) for instance who was appointed on January 23, 2009 but the
appointment "took effect" on January 26, 2009 and she took the oath of office on
January 27, 2009. [1]. Or Rebecca Latimer Felton (Q271243), who was appointed on
October 3, 1922 but took the oath of office on November 21, 1922. [2]. There are
other cases such as Arthur Thomas Stewart (Q2440140) who was elected on November 8,
1938 but did not take the seat until January 16, 1939. [3]. The same for Huey Long
(Q314384). Is it worth having separate properties for "appointed on" and "sworn in
on" and maybe even "elected on" to distinguish from "start time" (which I take it
should mean "assumed the duties on" when used with position held (P39))?
I had the same question about popes, we have the start date for some as their
election and some the start date as their consecration. --RAN (talk) 00:28, 10
December 2020 (UTC)
I'd assume that start time (P580) is supposed to be the date where an appointment
takes effect. This also affects awards, where an award winner may be announced at
one time, and the award handed out at a ceremony some time later. But that won't
stop the "wrong" value being used in a lot of cases. E.g., the British New Year
honours, where the date of "investiture" may not be readily available. Ghouston
I'd suggest using announcement date (P6949) for the other date. Ghouston (talk)
02:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
For awards (which is all a bit off topic), it could also be argued that the
presentation is a mere formality, and the date of the award is when it's announced.
I'm also puzzled by a couple of Victoria Cross plaques, such as
c:File:John_Whittle_memorial_Cygnet_20201114-012.jpg, where the date 9-15th April
1917 refers to the heroic deed itself, not the subsequent date when the award was
approved, nor the subsequent investiture. Ghouston (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2020
(UTC)
Encyclopedia article items
@GZWDer: is currently adding a gazillion items for encyclopedia articles (example:
Furlanetto, Matteo (Q104083209)) without identifying the main subject or the
encyclopedia in which the article is found.
I'm failing to see how these articles are notable. They do not have sitelinks. They
are not notable in the sense that they can be described using serious and publicly
available references (other, I suppose than each encyclopedia's index). They do not
seem to fulfill a structural need - at least, one which could not be served by
described at URL (P973) in the main subject's item.
My view is that Wikidata is not made better by the accretion of crud; and that
these items are cruddy. Should we be adding such items, or deleting them? – The
preceding unsigned comment was added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs).
large imports should be approved. I don't see that the User:LargeDatasetBot was
approved to import this dataset. The policy suggests that each independent action
be approved separately. Bot should be stopped until this is approved. BrokenSegue
GZWDer Do you any have plans to attempt to connect the encyclopedia articles to the
respective subject (Benezit ID (P2843) would help)? Do you have plans to add
essential missing structured data like published in (P1433) --> Benezit Dictionary
of Artists (Q24255573) or useful descriptions like "article in Benezit Dictionary
of Artists" (descriptions in any language would be an improvement from the
ambiguous/no-context labels)? We've all seen your work before. -Animalparty (talk)
05:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I have brought this thread to GZWDer's attention. In general, it is preferable to
raise issues like this directly with a user in the first instance.
Unless we're going to get a lot more information on these items, it seems to me
that this sort of import would be better embodied in an identifier property. And
yes, it would be good for the community to have advance notice of such large-scale
imports. Bovlb (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
"connect the encyclopedia articles to the respective subject" - this will be done
soon. "how these articles are notable" - an article is itself a topic, which can be
cited in Wikipedia article. Also, this allows using Wikidata search to find
relevant potential topic. The data is in Mix'n'Match, but Wikidata provides more
information (e.g. author). Furthermore, currently some of these article are
described as scientific articles, which is not correct; import them will prevent
errorous imports in the future. If there are further significant oppose I will stop
this task.--GZWDer (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: I don't know enough about this import (e.g. where it's coming from, what
further edits you will make, etc) to know if I would object. That's the point of
seeking approval first. Yes, the approval process is kinda broken now (I waited
over a month for my last BOT approval) but just breaking the rules because others
are or its annoying isn't helpful. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Many people import all sorts of things without discussion, sometimes causing
controversies. However, there are few people active at the bot approval process.
Some users raise their concerns, but do not comment further.--GZWDer (talk) 19:49,
Yes and many people should not be importing lots of things without discussion. The
bot approval process is poor but again that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it and
try to improve it. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Good practices for imports (which you mention below) include: making them
as complete as possible in the first attempt, so that humans and machines alike can
efficiently identify, contextualize, and build upon them. SourceMD does an
admirable job of scraping all essential bibliographic properties (most of the time)
from a simple DOI. Your LargeDatasetBot is also often very good at being complete
enough. What is less helpful is when thousands of incomplete items are generated
that fail to import essential properties like source for the Benezit articles, or
birth/death dates for Geni.com and genealogics.org imports, or descriptions in any
language. -Animalparty (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: A better question of how these articles are notable, would be how the bot
approval justifies their import. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, many things are imported to Wikidata without any discussion at all. This
is not very bad (many imports are valid), but not optimal either. We need to define
good practices for imports. Users can raise concerns, but it is more important that
how these concern should be resolved. Currently the resolution process is defective
and may be stalled easily.--GZWDer (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree a document explaining "good practices for imports" would be nice to have.
Is there no such document already? If not we could draft it up. BrokenSegue (talk)
20:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Not quite on point, but there's some interesting stuff at Wikidata:Dataset_Imports
and the pages it links to. Also, issues related to import have come up many times
in the past on this page and WD:AN. Bovlb (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Some tasks are not about specific dataset to import, e.g. Wikidata:Requests for
permissions/Bot/RegularBot 3 (please read in conjunction with my comment on 14:15
and 19:49).--GZWDer (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The general problem with Wikidata:Dataset_Imports is that it creates a lot of pages
about in process data imports that nobody reads and that aren't filled out
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Category:In_Progress_datasets
They don't really help. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
What reference source is the most deprecated
I have been fixing errors and noticed that some sources have more typos than
others. Is there a way to search for our most deprecated source ... typos and other
errors that have to deprecated because they are never corrected at the source. See
for instance Michele Cerimele (Q55836816) where I deprecated a date because of a
typo in our source: "Archivio Storico Ricordi". I fixed a dozen or so typos like
that today. --RAN (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this question. I wish I knew the answer. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:52, 10
December 2020 (UTC)
Recon service is down.
Hi the recon service at https://wikidata.reconci.link/ is down. Does anyone know if
there is a backup we can use? Thanks --Nikola Tulechki (talk) 11:21, 10 December
2020 (UTC)
@Nikola Tulechki: I've been using this one for OpenRefine for some time now, is it
down too? https://wdreconcile.toolforge.org/en/api Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:59, 13
December 2020 (UTC)
Which Wikiprojects is responsible for GeoNames (Q830106) issues
We frequently have people that notice issues involving Ceb-Wiki and GeoNames
(Q830106) sourced items. I think it would be great to have a page giving guidance
for those issues and likely it could be located at a Wikiproject. Which is the best
Wikiproject for it? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion the largest issue is 1. many pages in cebwiki are not linked to items
and some people oppose further mass import for future duplicates; 2. Not many
people care the unconnected pages in cebwiki; 3. People continue to import
(eventual) duplicate from different source, and since Wikidata does not search
unconnected pages, the number of duplicates will be higher and higher. If there is
my choice, I will mass import all unconnected articles from cebwiki then discuss
the next step. I don't like the current situation.--GZWDer (talk) 19:46, 10
December 2020 (UTC)
I think most people prefer not important more cebwiki articles. If the unconnected
cebwiki articles are ignored that's great. The problem is with those that are
connected to Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
"Ignored" does make more duplicates - Wikidata exists as a place that problems may
be found and fixed. What I hope in long term is once Abstract Wikipedia is a thing
most cebwiki articles will be migrated to that.--GZWDer (talk) 23:33, 10 December
2020 (UTC)
Do not mass-import cebwiki articles. >90 % of unconnected Cebwiki articles are
duplicates or spurious. The data quality is atrocious. Existing entities in
Wikidata that were created before someone had mercy and stopped these imports
accounted for weeks of subjectively useless busywork I had to do this summer when I
was trying to use Wikidata for actual work. That discussion you mention needs to
happen before any import. If you feel any content on cebwiki represents actually
existing entities, you're free to link them up with a reputable source. --Matthias
Winkelmann (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Many of data from Geonames actually comes from one of these: GNIS ID (P590) or GNS
Unique Feature ID (P2326).--GZWDer (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That still leaves hundred thousand or millions of items that don't come from those.
Important data from GNIS ID (P590) which is public domain would be much better to
import it from GeoNames which isn't.ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
An awful situation where all the vague GeoName entries were imported, that we
purposefully ignored. Many are synonyms for existing entries where there is not
enough information to be either useful on their own, or have enough info to merge
into the existing entry. At one time we debated importing all the VIAF entries, and
we did not because of the very same reason, most that we do not have already are
poorly defined and will never have enough information to be able to disambiguate
properly or merge. If we reargue VIAF entries only import ones with a defined birth
or death date, or both, so we avoid what happened at GeoNames. --RAN (talk) 00:05,
At very least, they have a valid sitelink, so they fall within WD:N. However, it
will be useful to document what problems Geonames have (e.g. where does data come
from; are there always a primary source for information; etc.) For VIAF, I think we
should create a secondary Wikibase instance that VIAF data may be imported to.--
GZWDer (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
They might be notable but that doesn't mean that a bot job that adds a lot of
doublicate items is reasonable. Anybody who wants to add items from CebWiki can do
so if they check not to add doublicates. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:26, 11 December 2020
(UTC)
/header's, /footer's, and the exclusion criteria
In Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#TemplateStyles pages, there is a
disagreement about consensus over the inclusion (notability) of "/header" and
"/footer" subpages of templates. Since 2013, Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria
explicitly listed any /header or /footer pages and there is still an abuse filter
which actively prevents adding them as links. Peter James believes it was always
wrong and only subpages in Project and Help namespaces should be excluded.
Opinions? --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Help wanted for one single data structuring...

Hi, I have tagged the Commons file File:Suharto_at_funeral.jpg. I found out that
more abstract values (historical) connected to the image can be added as
"Significant Event (P793)". However, if I add the most important data in this
manner, which is Q799299, I get an exclamation mark indicating:
Values of significant event statements should be instances or subclasses of one of

the following classes (or of one of their subclasses), but Indonesian killings of
1965–1966 currently isn't:
occurrence
fictional event
mythical event
temporal entity
accident
event
It seems as if one of the above, probably event or temporal entity (happened during
a period of 2 years), could be added to Q799299. I failed on that one, however, I
do not know where to add it. If my basic concept is correct, please advise, else,
other advice appreciated ;-) Pittigrilli (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Pittigrilli: So the issue was that Indonesian killings of 1965–1966 (Q799299)

wasn't categorized as an instance/subclass of anything. I added it as an instance
of mass killing (Q56514238) which should be an event. Now it should be recognized
as a proper significant event (P793). BrokenSegue (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2020
(UTC)
@BrokenSegue: Yes, now it is exactly as I wanted it to be. Thanks a lot. btw: How
do I mark your action with a "Thank you" here? Did not find the option yet. Cheers,
Pittigrilli (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You would go to the history page of the item. So here. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:28, 10
December 2020 (UTC)
Tiktoker
Can I create item for a tiktoker? --2001:B07:6442:8903:DDE3:82F0:635A:782D 18:01,
yes but they must meet our standards for notability (being a tiktoker isn't
sufficient). Maybe read Wikidata:Notability. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:32, 10 December
2020 (UTC)
tiktoker is Alexuh1 --5.169.197.187 18:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Are there other reliable sources on the internet that talk about him? If not, he
isn't notable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Territorial Entities
The latest situation on West Germany (Q713750) where there's disagreement about
what kind of items we should create for states suggests to me that we need common
standards for that. Situations where there are cities and items for settlements in
the same location similarly need common standards. I created WikiProject
Territorial Entities as a place for having those discussions. ChristianKl ❪✉❫
21:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Might be also a good idea to ping WikiProject Former countries (Q15304996)

Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 21:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bouzinac: As as I see there's currently no such Wikiproject on Wikidata. There are
similar issues surrounding cities and towns where boundaries change and I see it
best when those issues are addressed together in one Wikiproject. ChristianKl ❪✉❫
21:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Clause or provision in a law
At failed election provision (Q104100163) I can't find a proper instance_of for a
clause or a provision of a law, all the available ones involve contracts, and it
seems silly to create a new version just for one instance of an Act of Congress.
How is this handled in others, I can't seem to find other examples because I can't
properly define what it is an instance_of, there must be a proper word, or should
we expand clause and provision to be part of laws, as well as contracts. Can anyone
help? --RAN (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The cost of creating a new item for this is low when you don't find an existing
one. It's easy to merge in case there is another item. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:17, 11
December 2020 (UTC)
Community Wishlist Survey 2021
Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg
We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You
can vote from now until 21 December for as many different wishes as you want.
In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are
collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will
start with the most popular ones.
We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and
improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on
results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After
two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose
wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer
developers or other teams.
We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!
SGrabarczuk (WMF)
15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Newbie question
I joined the project two days ago. I worked, amongst other items, on counter-
insurgency and would like to have a brief confirmation on what I did, just to be
sure. I translate the Wikidata terms into everyday language to test if my
understanding is right:
I added items to "subclass of" which are related to the subject in a manner such as
"counter-insurgency can be abstractly described as:" a military strategy; a
political strategy; etc.
I added items to "instance of" which are related to the statement "counter-
insurgency can be/is": warfare; political repression; human rights violation; etc.
Coming to a specific question: "property of" would then imho be used for "who
does/practices counter-insurgency", leading to items like: military; intelligence
agency; special forces; counterinsurgency unit; etc.
I would appreciate a brief assessment, especially on my last question just above.

I think typically "instance of" is reserved for statements which are more
definitive. Counter-insurgency can be a human rights violation but it is not
definitionally. You have the same issue with some of your subclasses. "counter-
insurgency" isn't a kind of "military intelligence" (they are just related
concepts). I think political strategy is arguable. "who does/practices counter-
insurgency" is more for practiced by (P3095) not what you are saying. I made some
edits to what I think is more appropriate. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:09, 11 December
2020 (UTC)
Neither "subclass of" nor "instance of" are for adding all related terms.
Tagging an item both covert operation (Q1546073) and black operation (Q3394581) is
wrong. All black operation (Q3394581) are covert operation (Q1546073) and thus you
don't add additional information to an item that's already tagged as black
operation (Q3394581) by adding covert operation (Q1546073).
There might be items that are both human rights violation (Q11376059) and counter-
insurgency (Q760037) but given that not all counter-insurgency (Q760037)
necessarily are human rights violation (Q11376059) it doesn't belong there. Items
inherit all the subclasses of those classes that they reference via subclass of
(P279).
When it comes to improving the quality of the items black operation (Q3394581) are
covert operation (Q1546073) a key question given that covert operation (Q1546073)
is more narrow is: What is true for all black operation (Q3394581) but not true for
all covert operation (Q1546073). The description should answer that question so
users know when to use black operation (Q3394581) and when to use covert operation
(Q1546073). Wikidata is a lot about thinking how individual items relate to each
other and not so much about focusing on one item like you would focus on one
Wikipedia article that you want to bring to featured status.
In cases where a term as it's commonly used can mean multiple different things, the
solution isn't to add different things into the same item but to create multiple
items for the distinct meanings.
Currently, counter-insurgency aircraft (Q5176890) use (P366) counter-insurgency
(Q760037) is one way we say who uses counter insurgency. An item for
"counterinsurgency unit" would use the same pattern. Items like "counterinsurgency
unit" would usually be created for structural need. If we have an item about an
individual counterinsurgency unit there we would need a instance of (P31).
I hope I could make things a bit more clear. If you have additional questions I'm
happy to address them. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
And maybe "counterinsurgency unit" practiced by (P3095) counter-insurgency
(Q760037) would be more appropriate then use (P366). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:14, 11
December 2020 (UTC)
ChristianKl and BrokenSegue: Thank you very much. This clarified a lot. I have to
change my approach coming from Wikipedia even more than I already thought...
A problem on Q1922067
E4024 has undone my edit here. Then I started discussing the issue with him/her.
Finally he/she ended the discussion unilaterally. I think it isn't correct to
delete an information with the source before it is discussed enough. Can you help
on this situation? Uncitoyen (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I do know that Germany would be an example where the head of government is also
member of the cabinet. The term "prime minister" would, in itself, indicidate that
these are similar. Turkey, of course, still has a prime minister as well as a
president, IIRC, and it would make sense if only the former is a member of the
cabinet.
An English-language source would probably help in sorting this out. Although we
strife to be language-agnostic, it is, unfortunately, difficult.
As it currently stands, the claim remains and it's only the reference that was
deleted? Let's loop E4024 in here to maybe shed some light. --Matthias Winkelmann
The president is not part of any cabinet and I have not seen any reference that
says what this user claims. If I claim something I bring a ref, I cannot bring a
ref for something that does not exist. Thanks. E4024 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2020
(UTC)
[1], [2] As you can see in the English news, the cabinet now meets under the
chairmanship of the President of Turkey. It managed by a presidential system in
Turkey now. A government without a president of Turkey can't be formed. Naturally,
the president is part of the cabinet. Previously presidents of Turkey can't
establish a cabinet and couldn't administer over the cabinet. Q11696 It says the US
President that he is part of the US Government. Uncitoyen (talk) 19:23, 14 December
2020 (UTC)
Archivio Storico Ricordi
Archivio Storico Ricordi (Q3621644) is being used as a reference by a bot, but I
have corrected about a dozen typographical errors where dates have numbers
transposed. Should we stop using it as a source adding in redundant information
since it is so error prone, I can spot egregious errors with Wikidata:Database
reports/items with P569 greater than P570 and Wikidata:Database reports/unmarked
supercentenarians. It may be adding in more subtle ones. See for example: Wilhelm
Graf von Mirbach-Harff (Q94785517) and Gabriel Astruc (Q3093605) and Paul Joseph
Guillaume Hillemacher (Q2060201) and Giuseppe Taddei (Q471393). I will have to
figure out a search to find the ones I corrected previously and did not track at
Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/Archivio Storico Ricordi errors. If we had a
contact there, we could send them the errors to correct, like we used to be able to
do at VIAF and LCCN. --RAN (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Green Map icons

I am assembling a mapping between the terms used in the Green Map icons and
Wikidata items. There may be 1-to-many mappings in some cases as some of the Green
Map icons can represent quite general or multiple concepts. I am thinking to use
described by source (P1343), where the source item would be Green Map Icons
(Q103892210) and the reference URL (P854) would be the icon links found here.
Ideally the icons would be uploaded as a collection to Commons but the license is
not compatible. Does this sound like a suitable approach? Any alternative methods
that could work better? Thanks! Pauljmackay (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Political Graveyard
See Alfred Thomas Rogers (Q94293371) where the Political Graveyard ID gets an error
message. We need to change the format to allow a number after the alphabetical
surname, common surnames are broken up into multiple pages. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 12
December 2020 (UTC)
Can we automate the deprecation of less precise birth and death dates
See for example at Alfred Thomas Rogers (Q94293371) where I manually deprecated the
less precise value. I used to delete the less precise values but bots just keep re-
adding them. I don't mind them there anymore, they help find errors when the years
do not match. But if we deprecate them when a precise value is also included it
will aid in some of the searches I do looking for people with less precise dates
that I can upgrade to a precise value by looking for primary documentation. One
search I do is to look for people that would appear in the US WWI and WWII draft
registrations where I can get a precise birth date. --RAN (talk) 03:45, 12 December
2020 (UTC)
are the less precise values wrong? why deprecate them? one may have two sources
which provide the date at different precisions. including both is valuable and
neither is really deprecated. can we not just make it easier for you to
identify/use the more precise value when multiple are present? BrokenSegue (talk)
04:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not an error or a wrong value, I thought I made that clear. In this case
"reason_for_deprecation=item/value with less precision and/or accuracy". When they
both have the same rank it implies that both are equally wrong or equally correct.
Maybe someone was born on June 30, 1872 or maybe that is wrong and we only know
that they were born some time in the year 1872. I assume that is the whole reason
we introduced "reason_for_deprecation=item/value with less precision and/or
accuracy". Also when a field has multiple values with the same rank, the infobox
displays all the values for date_of_birth and date_of_death. See for instance:
Commons:Category:Erika_Morini --RAN (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You need to use "preferred rank" on the preferable (usually: most precise) claim,
"normal rank" on other claims that are correct, and "deprecated rank" only for
those which are incorrect, e.g. because they were for instance stated in a reliable
source. Unfortunately, "deprecated rank" and the "reason_for_deprecation" qualifier
are misused by many editors. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Q94293371 was done wrongly. The deprecated (though less precise statement) does
have a source, the preferred one has no sources. This is a very bad precedent.
--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
All those references are added by bots, they are not done by hand one-by-one. We
have a bot that adds Findagrave and other references that use full dates. They are
best handled by the bot, it doesn't create typos. I have a whole list of entries
with transposed numbers for dates from a human transferring them from their source
to Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
item/value with less precision and/or accuracy (Q42727519) has no uses and it
likely shouldn't exist in it's present form. What do we want to do with it?
ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Burn with fire. Multichill (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
While I understand the sentiment, maybe deprecating it's instance of (P31) Wikidata
reason for deprecation (Q27949697) and giving it a description that makes it clear
might be the better way to go about it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:46, 12 December 2020
(UTC)
Ok, so the plan is to not deprecate year-only values, but to uprank the more
precise value. That is fine with me, can we automate it? We do not need both values
in the infoboxes. Perhaps we should create reason_for_preferred_rank=item/value
with more precision and/or accuracy" as a way to explain the change in rank. What
do you think? --RAN (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but this should only be done with more precise values with a reference to a
respectable source, and only when the items do not already have some bestrank value
statement (do not override). I am not sure if this can be easily automated.Vojtěch
Dostál (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Sources are more important for deciding what's the best rank. In the example of
Alfred Thomas Rogers (Q94293371) the more precise claim has a source that's user
generated content and thus wouldn't be welcome on EnWiki. While it's not a huge
drama to have some items be like that, it's not desireable to automate the process
in a way where every item should be set that way.
If you do a search for items that could be improved by adding good sources from
primary documentation like US WWI and WWII registrations it's reasonable for this
item to show up. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
These were errors found in "Archivio Storico Ricordi" in just one quick pass:
Wilhelm Graf von Mirbach-Harff (Q94785517) and Gabriel Astruc (Q3093605) and
Giuseppe Taddei (Q471393). "Archivio Storico Ricordi" is one of our trusted sources
being used to add in year-only dates. Also look at our pages of errors we are
tracking in LCCN and VIAF. Please do not assume Findagrave has a higher error rate
or a lower error rate than those sources until you have calculated that error rate.
--RAN (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't speak about error rate but about it being user-generated content. Whether
or not I want this to be significant it matters to Wikipedian's. ChristianKl ❪✉❫
12:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
There are over 100,000 entries with precise-dates and year-only dates displaying in
infoboxes. I don't see that being corrected one-by-one by hand. If a precise value
is wrong, then that should be deprecated by hand, and assumed to be correct until
proven incorrect. --RAN (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedian's don't want data in their infoboxes that's assumed to be correct until
proven incorrect. Automating the process of putting data into infoboxes that
Wikipedian's don't want there damages the acceptance of Wikidata by Wikipedian's
and makes it harder to get infoboxes used more widely within Wikipedia. ChristianKl
❪✉❫ 12:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You wrote: "Wikipedian's don't want data in their infoboxes that's assumed to be
correct until proven incorrect" yet almost all data is unreferenced in Wikidata.
That is why we are creating bots to add in references. There are about 15 fields in
a standard human infobox and only 5 require a reference. I am pretty sure that
English Wikipedia editors do not want to see two entries for date_of_death in their
infoboxes, such as "December 25, 2020" and "2020", which is my whole point, to do
something so the less precise one does not display, which is why I started this
thread. --RAN (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The EnWiki-RFC on Wikidata does indicate that they want references for every
statement that comes from Wikidata even when it's allowed to make certain claims
within Wikipedia without providing sources for it. The infobox should ask for a
truthy value and thus not display both "December 25, 2020" and "2020" unless it
desires to get people who see the infobox do the work of setting the ranks.
There's no problem if the infobox displays 2020 even so we have an statement that
says "December 25, 2020". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
My 2c: my modus operandi when I find two dates, one more precise (day) and one less
precise (year), provided that both have reliable sources, is: to order the most
precise as first (using User:Tohaomg/rearrange values.js) and to give it preferred
rank, while leaving other statements with normal rank. I consider wrong marking
less precise statements with deprecated rank. --Epìdosis 17:48, 15 December 2020
(UTC) P.S. Moving this discussion in Help talk:Deprecation would maybe make it
easier to find it in the future
User:Paptilian , Scope of contributions which need experience, data structure
tutorials, global interaction
Itemized at User:Paptilian. Items that may need to be created.Paptilian (talk)
15:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
What's your question? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoping this is not out of line...
I'm hoping this post is not out of line, because I realize that this page is "not
about me." I've been a moderately active participant here this last few years, but
too much is happening in my life right now for me to continue to do so. I'll be
pretty much exclusively on Commons, and maybe not even there as much as usual. If
anyone actually needs to get hold of me here, please ping; I won't be reading this
daily. - Jmabel (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: it would likely be more effective to post such a message on your user page
because that's were people will look who might want to get a hold of you.
@ChristianKl: Very good thought. - Jmabel (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Help with mapframe
Hello, I'm trying to make sure that every NJ municipality is tagged with wikidata
information in OpenStreetMap and Wikidata. In order to do this I made a mapframe
map to see them all. The query itself is working, but for some reason some entries
are not reflecting while others are not. I made this page to debug what's happening
w:User:Acebarry/sandbox/debug. The problems are in the southern area of the state.
I have not started work on the northwest corner yet. I tried/checked the following:
All wikidata entries have P402

All OSM entries point to the proper wikidata entry
The query returns the elements I expect
The relations in OSM are valid (all parts of relation are "outer"/relation is fully
connected)
As an example Q3014914 was entered around the same time as the bordering
municipalities but it is not showing up. Any help or suggestions are appreciated!
Acebarry (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Acebarry (talk • contribs • logs), From personal experience, after adding

OpenStreetMap relation ID (P402) it may upto a week to build map from it. ‐‐1997kB
Protection on Q557839
There's been vandalism and other changes from IPs and new editors at Mirza Masroor
Ahmad (Q557839). This could use another set of eyes. This item could use temporary
protection. gobonobo + c 21:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It has been ✓ Done for one month. --Epìdosis 17:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree,
don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Epìdosis 17:52, 15
December 2020 (UTC)
New property navbox
I havd created a new module, Module:Property navigation, which may generate a
navbox from a list of properties stored in a structural way (such as
Module:Property navigation/sports). This is only the first step, and this module
does not support all types of property navboxes yet. The layout of navbox keeps the
same and is not redesigned.
Soon I will introduce some check so that the information at property talk page,
property page and navbox will be consistent (i.e. talk pages of all properties
listed in the navbox should include the navbox, and vice versa; also, properties
listed in the navbox should have specific metadata). Then, I will clean up
properties which do not have a navbox.--GZWDer (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Currencies : start date and end date

Hello, is there more appropriate properties for currencies, better than start time
(P580) / end time (P582) ? I was thinking about inception (P571) / dissolved,
abolished or demolished date (P576) but there are other dates properties whose
definition are close : date of commercialization (P5204) discontinued date
(P2669) ? Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 09:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure inception (P571) / dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576)
are the right choice here. My understanding is: Deutsche Mark (Q16068) inception
(P571) 1948-1-1, Saxony (Q1202) currency (P38) Deutsche Mark (Q16068) / start time
(P580) 1990-1-1 500 euro note (Q2503713) discontinued date (P2669) 2014-1-1
--Matthias Winkelmann (talk). 02:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
How are these 2 items different - to be merged?
Both entities seem to refer to the same concept. Q157828 and Q97940890.
The first has data such as players who played for the team etc associated with it.
The second which is quite new has team performance under P1344 etc. yet they seem
to be about the same thing. Normally, I would simply merge them, but just want to
make sure I am not missing something. CanadianCodhead (talk) 14:32, 14 December
2020 (UTC)
A way to deal with a question like this is to ask the person who created the new
item why they didn't reuse the existing one. @Balû:, do you think that Holstein
Kiel (Q97940890) provides value being separate from Holstein Kiel (Q157828)?
Thanks @ChristianKl:, I had considered that, but based on their contribution log,
which shows no activity since August, my assumption was they were no longer
actively participating on the site, thus the broader outreach. CanadianCodhead
Q441 Arabic aliases are disruptive

A bot User:ASammourBot added the majority of Arabic aliases for this entity. These
include hundreds of specific plant names, including very common plants with their
own entities, such as "apple" and "lemon". I would fix it myself, but the entity is
locked.
Wikidata weekly summary #446

Wikidata-logo-en.svg
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last
week.
Discussions
New request for comments: Adopt Help:SitelinksToRedirects as policy
Events
Upcoming: live SPARQL queries on Twitch and in French by Vigneron, December 15 at
18:00 CET
Past: m:WikiConference North America/2020
Past: Localization and structuring of open data-Zhu Tinghong-Wikidata Community of
Local Studies - MOPCON 2020 (replay), YouTube
Past: SMWCon 2020/Day 2 - "Wikidata Walkabout" by Yaron Koren (replay), YouTube
Past: Wikidata Lab XXVI: Structured citations module on Wikipedia (replay), YouTube
Press, articles, blog posts, videos
Building the SWIB20 participants map - combining Wikidata with custom data points
via a federated query (ZBW Labs).
Introducing the Mapping the Scottish Reformation Website - A new Wikidata-driven
website to explore the Scottish Reformation.
Introduction to Querying Wikidata Knowledge Graph using SPARQL by John Samuel
Video: LIVE Wikidata editing #25 - climate change, YouTube
Video: How to take data from OpenRefine to Wikidata through QuickStatements,
YouTube
Video: Editing Wikidata live - casual session by Jan Ainali, YouTube
Tool of the week
datao.net is a visual tool for querying and exposing Wikidata easily.
Other Noteworthy Stuff
The Coolest Tool Award 2020 featured some Wikidata tools: Lingua Libre won in the
category “Diversity”; Listeria, Lexeme Forms and Entity Explosion got honorable
mentions. Congratulations!
Complex constraint check for recency of value
The voting phase of the Community Wishlist Survey 2021 is open until December 21st.
You can vote on as many wishes as you want. There's a separate category for
Wikidata.
Template:Notebook Given name is a new template which gives for each given name a
list of useful SPARQL queries. The template can be used on the talk page of given
names. See Alexandre (Q16002466) for an example. Comments are Contributions are
welcome.
The next Wikibase live session is 16:00 UTC on Thursday 17 December 2020 (Add to
calendar). We will have a few people share out about their project in the first
half of the call and then continue our conversation from the last session about
what will be a better platform for community discussions. Everyone is welcome to
attend!
Did you know?
Newest properties:
General datatypes: category for the view from the item, mailing list archive, word
lookup, inappropriate property for this type, compatible with
External identifiers: Church of Jesus Christ missionary ID, Encyklopedie mostů v
Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku ID, Czech Gymnastics athlete ID, Encyclopedia of
the History of Ukraine ID, CollEx-Persée ID, theses.cz ID, Google Play developer
slug, AppGallery app ID, The Galileo Project ID, Artfacts ID, Biblioteca Marciana
owner ID, Museo Galileo biography ID, National Galleries of Scotland ID, Museo
Galileo authority ID, Bavarian State Painting Collections artwork ID, Delft
municipal monument ID, Dizionario degli artisti ID, Order of Canada recipient ID,
Students of Prague Universities ID, vets.cz ID, Chapels of southern Bohemia ID, GS1
GPC brick code
New property proposals to review:
General datatypes: insufficiently precise value, OpenReview.net group ID,
OpenReview.net submission ID, OpenReview.net profile ID, applies when property is
used, River Code, Wikimedian in Residence, Commons compatible image available at
URL (non-artwork), number of at bats, runs batted in, stolen bases, subdivision
monétaire
External identifiers: PBA ID, Medieval Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries IDs, LFH
staff ID, Cephalopod Ontology entity ID, Fungal gross anatomy entity ID, Plant
Ontology entity ID, Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology entity ID, DataTrek ID, DBLP
publication ID, PeriodO period ID, KANTO, CITWF title ID, CITWF person ID,
identifiant de la Cinémathèque québécoise pour une personne, Encyclopedia Titanica
ID, DzygaMDB film, DzygaMDB person ID, XXXBios female performer ID, XXXBios
transgender performer ID, AVN movie ID, Lichess Username, Evil Angel movie ID, Evil
Angel video ID
Query examples:
All stumbling stones in the city of Hannover
(partial) list, timeline and gallery of successful ascents of Mount Everest (and
few other summits)
Web & social media URLs for UK Civic Societies (Source)
Publication related to Research Institute of Text Analysis and Applications: no. of
pages per author/year, authors network (Source)
Map of the ritual objects said to be used by accused witches in Scotland
(colourcoded layer accessible on top right to see the list of objects) (Source)
Seats of the Parliament of England, and the first year we have a named person
listed for them (Source)
Female race car drivers on Spanish Wikipedia (Source)
Places of Geological Interest in Alamedilla (Source)
Number of Nature articles that were published on a Sunday in a given year
Schema examples:
Schema for stumbling stones
Newest WikiProjects:
Agriculture
Development
We spend the week doing some exploratory work for the next year. Among other things
we looked into how to measure the number of constraint violations on an average
Item and what we can learn from it.
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 Tasks
Add 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) 17:41, 14 December 2020
(UTC)
Alma Claude Burlton Cull
This is a man.
A. B. Cull (Q17084969) is the same person as Alma Claude Burlton Cull (Q21455905)
They need to be merged or whatever... -- Broichmore (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2020

(UTC)
Broichmore ✓ Done. See Help:Merge. -Animalparty (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020

(UTC)
Merge?
metastatic melanoma (Q55013644) and Q55779849 and metastatic melanoma (Q18975855)?
One says obsolete, but I am not sure why. --RAN (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2020
(UTC)
Yes. Merged. I think "Obsolete' = obsolete in that ontology. --Tagishsimon (talk)

00:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Merge IDs Távora (Tabuaço)
Hello, I tried to merge the IDs Q33869513 and Q111920 as they both relate to the
same parish (Távora in the municipality of Tabuaço) and need to be merged. But it
seems that there is a problem as they just can´t be merged. I am not very familiar
with merging and the indications didn´t help me here. Maybe someone more
experienced here could fix this problem, that would be wonderful! Thank you very
much! Best wishes,--Joehawkins (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
One is a former civil parish; the other a locality within the parish. They are
distinct things, one nested within the other. They should not be merged.
--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Obalky knih.cz
Currently we have "described by source=Obalky knih.cz" for over 5,000 items,
shouldn't this be made into an identifier instead? --RAN (talk) 22:00, 15 December
2020 (UTC)
Category: Wikidata-en
Navigation menu
English
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Project pageDiscussion
ReadEditAdd topicView historySearch
Search Wikidata
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
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
MediaWiki
Meta-Wiki
Wikispecies
Wikibooks
Wikinews
Wikipedia
Wikiquote
Wikisource
Wikiversity
Wikivoyage
Wiktionary
In Wikipedia
Afrikaans
‫العربية‬
Български
Banjar
বাংলা
Brezhoneg
English
Español
Français
229 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 15 December 2020, at 22:00.
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 policyAbout WikidataDisclaimersMobile viewData
accessDevelopersStatisticsCookie statementWikimedia FoundationPowered by MediaWiki

New Text Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Text Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

So you want to delete the information about the current senators?

SELECT DISTINCT ?phone ?phoneLabel ?instanceOf ?created ?published

Two things can be observed:

Anthony Dimond (Q573153)

Mendeley Profiles will be deprecated

I guess Wikidata:Contact the development team/SPARQL endpoint would be better?

You may be looking for Help:Wikimedia_language_codes/lists/all. Bovlb (talk) 00:42,

Help wanted for one single data structuring...

Values of significant event statements should be instances or subclasses of one of

@Pittigrilli: So the issue was that Indonesian killings of 1965–1966 (Q799299)

Might be also a good idea to ping WikiProject Former countries (Q15304996)

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate a brief assessment, especially on my last question just above.

Green Map icons

What's your question? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

All wikidata entries have P402

Acebarry (talk • contribs • logs), From personal experience, after adding

Currencies : start date and end date

Q441 Arabic aliases are disruptive

Wikidata weekly summary #446

They need to be merged or whatever... -- Broichmore (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2020

Broichmore ✓ Done. See Help:Merge. -Animalparty (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020

Yes. Merged. I think "Obsolete' = obsolete in that ontology. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You might also like