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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Wikidata Telegram group
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 2020/01.

Archive URL?[edit]

After the change of archive URL (P1065) only a handful of web archives are valid entries. Previously this was used for links to archives of any kind. An archive is where documents are physically stored, and possibly copies are made digitally available. This is not the same as a digital copy of something already available on the web. It is neither the same as an archive item, which more often than not refers to content of an archive box, not the actual document.

I believe this property was intended to be a general property for archive URLs, but is now turned into a property for web archive URLs. There are thousands of archives around the world, but only a handful of real web archives. Trying to maintain a single format regexp will quickly become a nightmare.

Perhaps a better description of the difference is that documents in a real archive is born on paper, while documents in a web archive is born digitally. The online information about a document in a real archive may not contain the document at all, it may only contain metadata about the document.The difference is not just functional, it is physical.

I believe we need a property for deep links into a real archive, which P1065 isn't anymore. Jeblad (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

But from the property proposal, this property was always intended as an URL to an archived version of a web page. Wostr (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want to understand what a property is intended to do, it's useful to look at the property proposal. In this case the description in the proposal is "The URL in the same reference but archived on Archive.org or some other archive service (webcite.org, archive.is)." The intention of the property isn't to link to meta data of physical archives. Ideally, we would have a bot that adds an archive.org link to every usage of reference url. We currently don't have a bot, but the property was created with that use-case in mind as Enwiki has a bot that actually protects the information in enwiki references that way against link rot.
It's a worthwhile use-case to save data about which libraries actually have physical copies of a document and it might make sense to have a Wikidata property to store that information but it's a different use-case then what archive URL (P1065) was designed to handle. ChristianKl❫ 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Use archives at (P485). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You can expand the regex. --- Jura 08:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

2020-01 Transnistria[edit]

What are the difference between Transnistria (Q3537754), Pridnestrovie (Q907112), Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (Q7242857), Q81644211 ? Involved contributors: @Quakewoody, Pridnestrovian editor: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

These are really different concepts.
The term "Transnistria" is a purely Romanian designation used in two meanings:
  • 1) the occupation regime created on the territory of the modern Odessa region of Ukraine during the Second World War, where genocide of the civilian population was perpetrated;
  • 2) the interfluve of the Dniester and the Southern Bug, it's is the same territory, but here considered not as an occupation regime, but as a region highlighted by the Romanians, which the Turks called Edisan until the 19th century.
Pridnestrovie is:
  • 1) the unrecognized state between Ukraine and Moldova - the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, declaring its independence;
  • 2) the preceding to it Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic - an administrative entity that claimed to become part of the USSR; after the collapse of the USSR, it was transformed into PMR (not as socialist state);
  • 3) the region covering the territory along the Dniester River (and not only the left bank).
When I looked for the already created items, I did not find anything about Pridnestrovie. Only about "Transnistria", which in principle is of little interest to anyone and exists exclusively in the historical context and the context of agressive Romanian nationalism. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It also seemed strange to me that the item "Transnistria" uses the elements related to the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. But, since that item is closed for editing, I considered it most reasonable to engage in the design of the correct record under the correct title than to enter into disputes with moderators about access to edit the record, originally related to Transnistria, and not Pridnestrovie. The difference between these concepts and the confusion in terminology I have explained above. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. If we get rid of any hints of "transnistria" and make a good description of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic instead of what we have now, then I am in favor of deleting the new record. Because it was very strange that I could not find a single WikiData item that would display the name Pridnestrovie. I don’t want instead of the name of Poland to display “Auschwitz” or “Treblinka”. Or "Holocaust firebox" instead of the name of Israel. Moreover, I do not want to see this about Pridnestrovie. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It does seem to me that we should have a distinct item for the term as used during World War II, distinct from the present unrecognized state in all but name and western border. That said, the present unrecognized state is usually referred to in English as "Transnistria", and I think that should remain its item name. I have literally never read anything where a native English speaker referred to it as Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic or anything similar. - Jmabel (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate item for Transnistria (the Romanian occupation district). However, only it should be called that way.
As for the name and the western border, there is nothing in common between Transnistria and Pridnestrovie. The Republic of Pridnestrovie located on both banks of the Dniester river: on the right bank are the city of Bendery and the Kitskansky village council of Slobodzeya district, on the left bank are five more districts. Tiraspol, the capital, today is located on both banks.
The name "Transnistria" appeared in 1992 during the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian war, when the aggressive nationalists who came to power in Moldova needed to somehow name the breakaway state. It was then that they recalled the term of Romanian Nazi criminals, because they could not use the "Russian" name. Then it leaked to the West, because (for obvious reasons) the Western media broadcasted Romanian and Moldovan sources in connection with this war. Literally, this term is translated as “through the Dniester,” “on the other side of the Dniester” - from Romania, of course; it is clear from this that the word has no relation to Pridnestrovie even outside the context of Romanian nationalism.
Over time, this word was almost forgotten: official sources used either "Stînga Nistrului" if it was about the administrative division of Moldova, or "PMR" if it was about the breakaway state itself. In the English language, this region does not have a well-established designation simply because even a fraction of the percentage of native speakers hardly heard about it, and the choice of terminology was dictated solely by context. It received a “new life” with the spread of the Internet and the advent of Wikipedia, which became the main distributor of the term in the Internet environment.
This is the main reason for the confusion and misunderstanding that sometimes leads to conflicts. In the Pridnestrovie, this term, applied as the name of this region, is considered a gross insult and disrespect for the locals and the history of their country (more about this, for example, here: 1234). Therefore, I want to deal with this misunderstanding. I do not think that in English or any other world-class language there is at least one name of the country, which would be an insult to its population. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
We are here not to rewrite history, but to reflect what's in the sources, even if this does not seem right to someone. For some languages there are lists of official names of countries and unrecognised territories – so it's easier to select a name – but for the rest, we should have a name that is used in most of the sources written in that language. BTW there is also Transnistria Governorate (Q167641) that describe the territory during WW2. Wostr (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
That's right, plus we need to remember about the neutral tone of descriptions. Therefore, in this case the only permissible naming must be taken from official sources that established by official legal regulations. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, precedents with the correction of names are here even for unrecognized states: 1. And this despite the fact that Karabakh is a real geographic area, the name of which does not bear any second meaning or offensive tinge, in contrast to the ugly Romanian word “transnistria”. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Official sources from the entity involved are hardly "neutral." - Jmabel (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So this is not an official source, but a news site. The same articles were published on other sites, but on Russian or Romanian. I brought the Pridnestrovian resource only because there is a qualified translation into English. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
If the 'Transnistria' is the most common name in English, it should be a label of an item. Period. Wostr (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In English, the most common name of the subject is "Stînga Nistrului" or "Left bank of the Dniester", as follows from official documents of Moldova. This is natural, given that the main area where English is used in relation to this subject is the issue of resolving the frozen conflict and the diplomatic relations of the participants in the negotiation process, including EU and USA. All the use of "transnistria" comes down to Internet dumps, the source of which is Wikipedia, nothing more. To declare on this basis that the subject under discussion, which almost no one had ever heard of outside of ex-USSR, has some kind of an established designation in the language, it is simply meaningless. A designation may appear only with recognition of the independence of this state and the inclusion of its name in official norms and standards. Now we should be guided by the official documents of the state that is described here, and the self-name of the people, and not engage in promoting biased and offensive terminology. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's clearly you POV that should not be transferred to WD. Only a thorough query of reliable sources (academic books, scientific articles etc.) in English can solve this problem. Wostr (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
My POV? I ask you to argue. And on which subject do you need reliable sources? On the subject of using the word "transnistria" in English? This is already funny. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I can pretty much guarantee that no native English speaker who didn't speak Romanian as well would ever consider "Stînga Nistrului" (or "Stânga Nistrului" if they picked up their Romanian in Romania rather than in Moldova). You would see Transdniestria, Transdniester, and other such variants. For what it's worth: en-wiki, which we usually follow on article names, begins its article Transnistria "Transnistria or Transdniestria, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic"; Britannica opts for Transdniestria and begins their article "Transdniestria, also spelled Transnistria, also called Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Republic and Pridnestrovie"; National Geographic opts for Transnistria. - Jmabel (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The Romanian "Stînga Nistrului" will not be considered, but the Romanian "Transnistria" will be? It's funny. Probably, you did not see the use of the terminology of official Moldova because you are not a diplomat or politician participating in the negotiation process. More English in relation to this region is almost never used. The fact of the matter is that in various sources you can find any names that were called PMR: Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Pridnestria, Pridnestrovia, Pridnestrovie, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, Cisdniestria, etc. Meanwhile, the only name of this state - if we are talking about this particular state, as can be understood from the description of item Pridnestrovie (Q907112) - is defined in its legislation and self-name. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, here are the legislative acts defining the correct name of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic:
Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Cisdniestria (belatedly added in comment above is an almost completely unused term (150-odd Google hits), and "cis" is the opposite of "trans" in Latin, Romanian, and English. It would presumably refer , if used, which it basically isn't, to the (from a Western or Central European point of view) "near" side of the Dniester, which is to say the rest of Moldova. Adding it yourself to Pridnestrovie (Q907112) does not make it otherwise. - Jmabel (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

True, this is an attempt to literally translate the original name of Pridnestrovie. I tried to collect all designation of the PMR and Pridnestrovian land that are found in English sources, except for the nuances of transliteration, such as Dnestr/Dniestr/Dniester/Dnjestr/... About Western Europe: the toponyms is not created in accordance with the geographical location of native speakers of a language. The "reference point" is usually the country or people to which the region belongs. An example here is Ukrainian Transcarpathia: in relation to Europe, this is also not "trans-". In the case of Pridnestrovie, by the way, this is another aspect that makes all names with "trans-" offensive - this is an expression of the claims of Romania from the time of Nazi dictator Antonescu. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why 'former X' is subclass of 'X'?[edit]

I have found cases where:

Does this makes sense? IMHO, the condition of subclass of (P279) is not fullfilled: it is not true that all instances of 'former X' are instances of 'X'.

Regards, --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Ayack (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of cases, for example:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because the class is "X", not "current X". Circeus (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The main issue I see with these "former XXX" items is that they are used in P31 statements on geographical or administrative entities while the notion of "former" should only be expressed with date qualifiers, never with "former XXX" items. Ayack (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
All Xs are current Xs. If I was a police officer yesterday, and then I stopped being one, then I'm no longer a police officer; I'm a former police officer and not a police officer. --Yair rand (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The "former X" items are kind of nonsense, but they're convenient tags. "Former X" is taken as just "X", even in cases where qualified by date qualifiers, while allowing cheaper queries than checking the date data directly. Basically pretend that the word "former" isn't there in any statements using the items, and formulate things so that the assumption works. --Yair rand (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, John von Neumann (Q17455) is still described in Wikidata as human, but has a date of death to express the "no longer current" aspect. I'm surprised that nobody has created a class for deceased humans yet. See also Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/04#Classes for defunct entities. Ghouston (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #398[edit]

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Could you tell us where we can find some doc on tainted references (in its current design) and how we can test it please? Thanks. Ayack (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ayack: you'll find a short description of the project and how to test it on this page. If there's any kind of information missing, let me know. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Lea Lacroix (WMDE). So this has nothing to do with "signed statements"? Or is it a first iteration? Ayack (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
In short: while doing research about the initial project that was called signed statements, we discovered that the main need for people is to be able to highlight and prevent mismatched references - regardless of the provenance of the source, encrypted or not. That's why we started with this. The original idea of signed statements described in the 2019 roadmap may evolve with time, based on what we learn on the way :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

what is allowed to have an item?[edit]

On Help:Items#Notable_items you find this text: "Wikidata items are said to be notable. This means at least one of three things:

  • a corresponding page on a Wikimedia site such as Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons,
  • a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references or
  • the item fulfills a structural need. For more information look at our notability policy."

I'm thinking about the second one. What is this eg. "clearly identifiable [...] material entity" that can be described using "serious and publicly available references". I read there is Wikidata:Notability, but that does not help in these edge cases. A small list of things I'm thinking about:

  • streets - QID: Yes, they are unique and I guess notable enough
  • lines of public transport - QID: Yes, some of them have whole Wikipedia articles about them and I think you can call them notable
  • art in public places - QID: Yes, as long as they are build to stay where they are

the cases on the far edge I'm interested in:

  • trees - In some cities each tree has it's own number and there is public information about the species, where it is planted, etc. But why should a single tree (or a bunch of them) be notable even they have their very own ID (except they may break down and kill someone)
  • charging stations (with public access) - All charging stations have an ID and information that is available for the public where you can check things like available sockets and power
  • all buildings in general - There is a lot of information about buildings in general, but do they really deserve their own item? Well known buildings like the Eiffel Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge or the Fenghuoshan Tunnel may is. I have seen that buildings like firestations and churces get their own item. But what about that not so special house next to the church that was there before the church which burned down several decades ago. What about every other house in town? Every house used by some family will not be notable, but are eg. skyscrapers even they serve the same purpose?
  • factories - if the area is used by a well known brand name, maybe. If the area is used by a small one-person-company, probably not.
  • restaurants/stores - for the well known brand if it's a big store, maybe. I would agree if it's a shopping mall. For the small asian restaurant around the corner that opend a week ago, no

These are just my personal thought. I try to get the unsharp "notable" more in focus. Eg. self-promotion items of some artist, probably not. A photographer from Commons - these items already exist even you could argue about the notability here. But since they are allowed to have images of themselves on Commons, why not an Item on wikidata.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic! --D-Kuru (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: Our notability requirement, point 2, says "described using serious and publicly available references" - note the plural. If something is described only in a single database, then I think it does not qualify. I believe we also have a consensus that a facebook page or other similar self-curated source also doesn't confer notability. Some of these things belong elsewhere - perhaps other wikibase instances. Streets and possibly public transport lines I would mostly keep out of Wikidata. Public art I think is fine to add, at least for clearly identifiable unique artworks. Trees - some individual trees may be added (we already have some like Neuhaus Oak (Q114810)) but for the most part, I don't think so. Charging stations I'd class with public transport lines - maybe, but probably better elsewhere. Buildings/factories/restaurants etc. could belong here, we certainly have a lot of them already. But not every house! ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few articles about streets in major cities on en-wiki, and even more Commons categories; necessarily these get Wikidata items. Special:Search/Streets in Manhattan will bring up several hundred examples (plus a comparable number of false positives). - Jmabel (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think there are plenty of cases where data about streets is useful. named after (P138) allows us to store information that OpenStreetMap doesn't store well.
I feel like it would be great to have items for all restaurants in a given city if we would have a strategy for keeping the items up to date. Whether or not that's the case is however different in different cases. As a result I think it's good to have bot discussion when bigger chunks (>10,000) of new content are planned to get added. ChristianKl❫ 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! In some parts people disagree (well, who would have thought, right?). Eg. If streets are not important (other than storing data OSM can't handle well), but keep every restaurant (for whatever purpose) that would be strange. I guess that you have to discuss about every item individually which makes adding content harder since you have to create a first item and then discuss about it. If you plan for something larger you want to work on it and not wait for months or maybe even see the discussion die out and nobody cares in the end (something I saw a lot on Commons).
@ChristianKl: But where would you start a discussion for such items?
Are there any more opinios on that? if you completely disagree it's even better so that I get a view from the other side!
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot is the page where a lot of relevant discussion like the one about whether we want to import all German companies happen. ChristianKl❫ 20:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Thanks for the note, I will take a look at it! --D-Kuru (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is what it is. Trying to make "all or nothing" rules about various types of item is, in my opinion, unhelpful. For example, the British Government publishes a database of all bus stops in the UK. Each of the bus stops listed is therefore "a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references" and some day I intend to get that information into Wikidata. Does that mean all bus stops, everywhere in the world are suddenly "notable"? No, because not all bus stops are "a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references". Can I say "Well if that bus stop is notable then this building next to it must also be notable because a building is more substantial than a bus stop"? No. The bus stop is a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references, but the building might not be. If the building is notable according to Wikidata's definition, it would be because it's a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references, not because it's bigger than an entity we have an item for or just because it belongs to a class of items we've decided should all be included. Waggers (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Waggers: "All or nothing" more or less has to be in use for at least some categories, because of the structural need criterion. If a bus stop is notable, then the next stop on the line is also notable because of that criterion (to allow for valid adjacent station (P197) statements), and then the next stop, and then the next stop. This issue also applies to (certain groups of) people, streets, creative works, and pretty much any other group of entities where not all the items are Wikipedia-notable but most or all of the items are related to each other in some way. Because only one of the criteria needs to be met in order for an item to be notable, the policy does currently allow for items which are only notable per the structural criterion. Jc86035 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Waggers: Sure there can't be an all or nothing approach in the first place since you have to start somewhere. However, would a bus stop in the UK be more notable (or notable at all) just because it has a number and is listed on an official page? What about bus stops that are not listed by the government? Eg. a bust stop in the middle of Africa, that is called "Toto stopped here". The bus station does not have a number, but a sign and a shelter and the bus stopped at this position since 1982 and it is an important bus stop in the area. Is this bus stop now less notable because it is not listed on some governmental page? Or what about bus stops that maybe are in the UK, but are located in Scotland where no english man dares to set foot into the area?
To condense it: It has to be all or nothing since one is not more or less important than the other based on the simple fact if there is a reference for it or not.
To have an example ready: electric vehicle charging station (Q83009020)
I added pretty much everything there is to add for a charging station. You can find it on some sort of official map (bad example, there are much better ones made by electric companies) and it has a serial number. So it is clearly identifiable and in the whole world there will note be a second charging station with the same serial number since said number includes the country code. And yet, it is just a charging station. One of many and many more to come. Is this now a notable item or do I have to ask for the item to be deleted?
--D-Kuru (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating dummy items for easier use[edit]

Is there any way to create some kind of dummy item. The purpose would to have a template for a new items that you don't miss anything. I know that you can duplicate an item, but you have to change the values and you have to recheck if there might be a property that would fit for the item that was not included in the copied one. So far I have a list on a userpage where all properties that could fit are listed. If possible I would like to create a virtual item that is filled with all the information you can find and you can publish it when you save it once everything is ready to go --D-Kuru (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

With Cradle it is possible to create forms. In the form you can enter all values and properties needed. It is possible to create new ones in that way. I currently dont know a tool, which helps adding properties with a form to a existing item. I think this were something what would help people editing Wikidata. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. If you have several items with identical statements put the statements in a class and make your items instance of it. The items will inherit the statements. Same with object-oriented programming. --SCIdude (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Hogü-456: Cradle will may help along for now since it looks like that it at least suggests properties.
@SCIdude: The idea is more of itmes with instance of X that you can not really do with a main item. Eg. notable buildings in city X. I don't think that an item with "buildings in city X" is a good idea. For each building you have to enter a bunch of information and they can differ from each other (eg. coordinate location, used by, adress, heritage building ID, architect and so on). You could copy an item, but you would have to change every value.
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have misunderstood your question, sorry. Alternatively (for many items) I would use a spreadsheet for input and create QuickStatement commands from it. --SCIdude (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
From what I can tell from the project page I would say that this is pretty much what I'm looking for, but it seems a bit complicated right now. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation and preferred rank[edit]

I believe reason for deprecation (P2241) and reason for preferred rank (P7452) should always be valid qualifiers - that is, they should never cause a constraint violation on any property regardless of that property's list of allowed qualifiers. Do you agree, and is this possible in the software? - PKM (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite annoying to add these properties to the list of allowed qualifiers whenever I want to deprecate/prefer a statement using a property that does not have these qualifiers already added as allowed. Wostr (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE)
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
MisterSynergy
John Samuel
Sannita
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Pasleim
Jura
PKM
ChristianKl
Sjoerddebruin
Salgo60
Fralambert
Manu1400
Was a bee
Malore
Ivanhercaz
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Pizza1016
Ogoorcs
ZI Jony
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Have had the exact same thought before --SilentSpike (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hope it's possible. --SCIdude (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wonder if there are more such "administrative/meta" qualifiers. --Jneubert (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. ChristianKl❫ 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably mapping relation type (P4390) too? --SCIdude (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes! - PKM (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no objection. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have created a new Phabricator task T242797 for this request. I've called it "universally allowed qualifiers". Thanks, all! - PKM (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No objection. The only valid contraint should be that reason for deprecation (P2241) sould have not normal or a prefered rank. --Fralambert (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, Sometimes I feel like we could use more freetext explanation properties, like generic comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315), or more specific syntax clarification (P2916). --Jarekt (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't see what that has to do with this topic, but free text doesn't have any structured data to it, so I don't think it belongs on Wikidata. --Yair rand (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amen to that. Moebeus (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support for such a feature. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the samples given above, e.g. VIAF ID (P214) shouldn't have both. BTW, it's fairly simple to add an allowed qualifier to several properties. --- Jura 08:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Neue Strategy Liaison für deutsche Sprache[edit]

(This text aims to raise awareness for the final phases of the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 in german language)

WM2030.png


Anfang 2017 begann, mit Auslaufen der alten Strategie, die Feststellung des Bedarfs und die Entwicklung einer neuen Strategie für die Wikimedia-Bewegung bis 2030. Jetzt, nachdem viele Einzelpersonen und Arbeitsgruppen Vorschläge erarbeitet haben, die immer wieder durch Feedbackrunden überarbeitet wurden, werde ich euch nächste Woche darum bitten, die finalen Vorschläge für die Strategie Wikimedia 2030 durchzuschauen und zu diskutieren. Meine Rolle in dem Prozess, der bis Juni andauert, wird es sein, eure Rückmeldungen zu sammeln und weiterzugeben, Chancen und Risiken sollen aus euren Antworten sprechen. Außerdem bin ich jederzeit für Hinweise und Fragen verfügbar, von „was ist überhaupt eine Strategie“ bis zu „wie wird mich das im Datensammeln und -veröffentlichen beeinflussen“. Jedenfalls freue ich mich schon auf euch und wünsche mir eine fruchtbare Diskussion. Weitere Infos wird es hier sowie auf Meta und Wikipedia:Wikimedia2030 geben. CJackel (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @CJackel (WMF): and welcome to Wikidata! The Wikidata:Project chat is usually an international talk page where discussions take place in English. In order to reach the German-speaking community, I can suggest to add your message to the German-speaking page Wikidata:Forum.
If you need anything regarding community communication on Wikidata, feel free to reach me. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not easy to keep up. Although I have a few hundred edits on Wikidata with my private account, I was not aware of the Forum. Thank you for your advice, Lea Lacroix (WMDE)! Cheers CJackel (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@CJackel (WMF): did you use Wikidata in German or in English? Do you have insight of why it might have been hard for you to be aware of the forum and how it might have come to your awareness easier? ChristianKl❫ 14:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
ChristianKl, I am not totally aware of which language I use. I suppose, both. Mostly fixing interwikis, adding descriptions, pictures or citations. This is more or less not language specific. --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
On top of the page the main language you are using at any given point is listed. There's a bunch of stuff the UI does depending on how that language setting is made. ChristianKl❫ 15:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I never changed anything in the preferences, I am only doing so in Wikipedias and other projects in languages that do not use the Roman alphabet. This is probably why I was not aware of the Forum. Regards --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Weird sitelink glitch[edit]

When clicking on the sitelinks in the ast.wiki article http://ast.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntos_estremos_d%27Europa the en sitelink takes you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paved_roads_in_Europe rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Europe. I tried fixing this in the Wikidata items list of highest paved roads in Europe (Q3834274) and extreme points of Europe (Q2344897) by deleting the sitelinks and putting them back, and by purging the Wikidata pages but no luck. Any idea what is wrong? Abductive (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by ast:Special:Diff/2745627; the astwiki page defined an oldschool-type interwikilink via the ast:Template:VT template. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Why is this VT template still in use? Is it common on other Wikipedias? Abductive (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Abductive: It's a hatnote template, and hatnotes are fairly ubiquitous on most large Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia's version of the template doesn't have this issue, because the Lua module on which it relies automatically prefixes an extra colon at some point. Jc86035 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

From 4 Identifier Properties to 1 Identifier Property[edit]

Until December 2019 the Media Art Database (Q54760023) had different identifiers and URIs for different material in their database. There was Media Art Database manga ID (P6369), Media Art Database anime ID (P6368), Media Art Database console games ID (P7117) and Media Art Database author ID (P3231). But they have changed their IDs and the structure of their URIs without redirection. Now there should be only one identifier property for all material. My question is, how should we deal with the old IDs? Is it appropriate to create a new property "Media Art Database ID" and mark the old IDs as deprecated? (In addition, I have got a mapping file for the video game IDs from old to new, but not for the other stuff.) Diggr (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that there are no redirects i don't think it makes much sense to keep the old ID's. I would propose a new property, and once that gets accepted deprecate the old properties and start moving the old id's over to the new ones, deleting the old claims in the process. Husky (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Any chance the old ones are worth keeping in terms of finding things in online archives? - Jmabel (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The standard procedure in Wikidata is to keep old identifiers even when a website goes offline. It seems to me like it would be good to have a help page that describes our procedure. ChristianKl❫ 08:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Added a quick line to Wikidata:Identifiers: Special:Diff/1099321573 (feel free to update/move/etc. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've created a property proposal for the new identifier Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#Media Art Database ID Diggr (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Property for item that is listed on a page[edit]

You can only link one article from wikipedia to one item. What if a list article contains more than one item? Is there a property like is listed on? --D-Kuru (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There is part of the series (P179) and has list (P2354), but I think we should not lend too much weight to individual Wikipedia articles/lists: some items that are only redirects to lists on English WP have individual articles on other language Wikipedias, and vice versa. Are you asking how to link individual items to Wikidata that only appear on lists? -Animalparty (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
For example Adolphe Thiers (Q5738) is linked with president of the French Republic (Q191954) which in turn is linked with list of Presidents of France (Q29580): there's no need for a direct link between Adolphe Thiers (Q5738) and list of Presidents of France (Q29580). Ghouston (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Animalparty: I have a wikipedia list page and want to link an existing item to that page. Example: I have de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Pressbaum that lists heritage buildings in the area of the city de:Pressbaum. Then there is Q37825991 that is a small entrance tower to the Second Vienna Mountain Spring Pipeline. Is there a way to link this item to the list? There is Cultural heritage monuments in Pressbaum (Q1858294) which is the Wikidata Item for the list on Wikipedia. Maybe with instance of and the list item as item (does not really sound right here)
@Ghouston: With Q37825991 I don't see a link to the list on de.wikipedia
--D-Kuru (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like it's fine as it is. There's no single item for "Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt in Pressbaum", but Q37825991 has heritage designation (P1435) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements which in combination declare the same thing. Ghouston (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Lillehammer[edit]

Those of you who are active on enwp, can take a look at en:Lillehammer Municipality and en:Lillehammer. The first one is connected to an item about a "municipality" and the other is connected to an item about a "municipality in Norway". Even the items tells they said to be the same as (P460)! There is only one municipality with this name in Norway, so ... There is also an item about a populated place with this name! 62 etc (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In most cases, its the Cebuano Wikipedia which causes a duplication - apart from the correct thing that there's a separate item about the settlement and the municipality. One way it could be solved would be to link en:Lillehammer Municipality to Lillehammer (Q101341) and en:Lillehammer to Lillehammer (Q3745117), and change that article slightly to make sure that the municipality is handled in another article. However, as most Wikipedias don't separate the two concepts of settlement and administrative unit, there is one one article, and that is linked to the municipality - so can be confusing the long German article is linked to a three sentence stub in English. BTW: Lillehammer might be a rather prominent example, but only in Germany there are still 2000+ real duplicate municipality items [2] I am slowly merging... Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Even in cases where there is only one article, there is often a need to be two items, since the data about the municipality does not match that of the settlement. Not only the population and area differ, also their history. Mark, that can be said when there really is real data about the settlement. In Norway there in most cases is. In most cebwiki/geonames-cases there is not. 62 etc (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Even in the case where there is no exact data on a settlement - like in Germany - there is one perfect reason to split settlement and municipality. In most cases the settlement once established will always be there, maybe growing, maybe even merging into another one. A municipality as a legal entity usually is created much later than the settlement, and it might get merged into a neighboring one at any time, or changing name, or changing its administrative center. Placing all into one item here would require lots of applies to part (P518) qualifiers and become a total mess. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete (Q82105340)[edit]

I accidentaly crested an data-item Q82105340 wich already existed Q47267. Can this data item be removed, to avoid clutter?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: no – the item should be merged into the other one instead. See Help:Merge for how to do it. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
→ ← Merged, please read the help page linked above for future reference. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I on the right track with Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088)?[edit]

Hi all! I was just wondering if anyone could take a look at Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088) and give me some pointers before I go too much further with this and potentially add the wrong properties to the other few entities. I think I've pretty much got the hang of the basics but I'm still kind of struggling with the whole subclass thing for some reason. It seems to make sense for a second but then I lose it when I try to apply it to sound recording device (Q66087652). I'm getting warnings with storage device (P4788) and writable file format (P1073) when I use them on instances of it.

I'm not too sure about the first because I thought that subclasses transfer, and because Q50993355 -> Secure Digital card (Q466977) -> memory card (Q183731) -> data storage (Q193395) it should be fine, but I get "Values of storage device statements should be instances of data storage (or of a subclass of it), but SDXC card currently isn't".

The second one, I think that writable file format (P1073) just needs the electronic machine (Q2858615) class added to the value type constraint.

I didn't just want to button mash until something worked though so if anyone has any suggestions, they would be much appreciated! Cheers in advance --Aluxosm (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

They look pretty good, I have a few ideas to improve them a bit which I'll edit directly. Ghouston (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The property writable file format (P1073) is only supposed to be used on software items, not devices. However, I've suggested expanding its usage at Property_talk:P1073#Devices. Ghouston (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ohhh it all makes sense now! You can of course have instances of Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088) and they need to inherit sound recording device (Q66087652). Thank you so much Ghouston (talkcontribslogs) and D-Kuru (talkcontribslogs)! --Aluxosm (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome. Not usre for what, but you are welcome! --D-Kuru (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
D-Kuru (talkcontribslogs) - Haha I thought you'd seen this topic and that's why you made the edits to Zoom H4n Handy Recorder (Q8074152) and Zoom H2 Handy Recorder (Q3576049). I didn't realise that you'd made loads of edits to those items before so they were probably on your Watchlist. Either way, after seeing what you did, and then what Ghouston did with Zoom H6 Handy Recorder (Q81525088), it all clicked (my confusion with the subclass thing) and I'm very thankful for it ;) --Aluxosm (talk)
@Aluxosm: You can use {{re|USER}} or {{ping|USER}} to not have the "(talk • contribs • logs)" section included.
I did actually neither see this post nor have it the items on my watchlist. I saw your edits on my images on Commons. Then I thought that I might recheck the subclass of and instance of section since I cofused both of them some time ago. But it seems to be all fine and well now. Just need to add that property for writable file formats
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, amazing! Cheers for the heads up on {{re|USER}}, I was just thinking that something like that should exist. --Aluxosm (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Change to regex constraint not being reflected?[edit]

A couple of days ago, I changed the format as a regular expression (P1793) constraint on MoEML ID (P6060) (this diff), because the final numeric part of the identifiers can have multiple digits.

But I am still seeing constraint warnings as at Q7308717#P6060, even when such claims were added some time after the constraint was updated. And OpenRefine isn't taking the change on board either, flagging such identifiers as issues before upload.

Can anyone cast any light on what's going on here? Jheald (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This, I think: [3]. Why is it specified in two places? Ghouston (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Been there, tripped over that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge two items for Easter date calculation?[edit]

Computus (Q245003) and computus (Q56318457) appear to be the same. The English Wikipedia article w:Computus was shifted from the former to the later today. Neither Wikidata item has anything on its discussion page. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This items discribe the same thing, so it needs to be merged.--AcademDoctor (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Q245003 is "Computus"; Q56318457 is "calculation of the date of Easter". If they are the same they should be merged to Q245003, as that is the original item, but the French Wikipedia has two articles. Peter James (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The merge fails because there are two different French articles. Q245003 is associated with w:fr:Comput but Q56318457 is associated with w:fr:Calcul de la date de Pâques. I don't read French well enough to know how the linkages should be changed. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: w:fr:Comput ("the calculation of calendar elements used by the Christian churches") appears to be a sort of overview page that discusses both Indiction (Q1339127) and computus (Q56318457), with more attention paid to the latter. It's hard to make a good comparison because the English Wikipedia article is much more detailed (and also because my understanding of French is not particularly good), but both frwiki articles contain information that is also included in w:en:Computus. The ways I could see to model this in Wikidata would be to either keep Q245003 as some sort of parent to the various related topics or to turn it into a disambiguation item. (Some of the statements on Q245003 would need to be changed either way.) Jc86035 (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. w:fr:Comput is a kindalike general article about religious dates calculations/computations (comprised of Easter date, indeed). And w:fr:Calcul de la date de Pâques is a w:fr:Comput technique for Easter. Please note that English word "computer" is derivated from latin computo : to count. Bouzinac (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Correctly representing archaic or debunked "racial" term entries[edit]

Entries like Q714773 "Nordic race" are held on Wikidata unqualified, and so are both incorrect and may be open to misuse to promote debunked theories of Nordicism or other race hate-related propaganda. This should be qualified within the entry itself as being historical language which cannot be applied to humans in any logical way. Raising here as this has been a current issue for "racial" categories on Commons, ref c:Commons:Village_pump#Correctly_representing,_but_not_promoting,_"racial_theories"_used_in_Nordicism_and_Nazism. -- (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@: This is an issue with all racial categorizations of people, not just this particular item, so I think this would have to be dealt with by modifying the items higher up in the tree like race (Q3254959). For other items, like homeopathy (Q81058), it makes sense to have some sort of "not valid" distinction on the item, but the issue is applicable to all human racial classifications, so it might not make as much sense to add statements on each individual item. I think you could add a statement to indicate whether the subject of the item is in contemporary use, but I don't know if it would be appropriate to go further than that. Jc86035 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
A core principle of Wikidata is that Wikidata is not the judge of what's the correct description. We rather go with what serious sources say about what someone's ethnicity happens to be then trying to make a judgement of our own about what the ethnicity happens to be and note diagrament when different serious sources disagree. It's worth noting that we do have a higher standard for sources for ethnicity then we have for other properties given that ethnicity is special in the way it can be misused. ChristianKl❫ 19:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You are missing the point. These are not "ethnicity" and this is not a debate about validity or whether Wikidata should be a "judge". You may as well be tagging a record for someone born in India a "wog" or start using a people classification of "teddy bears". These are false "racial" types which have been long debunked, are only ever used by white supremacists, neo-Nazis or other racist extremists, and should never be used to classify people at all. -- (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you lack knowledge of how Wikidata works with race and try to propose policy without understanding the status quo. There are plenty of censi that happened and that do record information about race. I would be surprised if any census exists that classifies people as Teddy bears. On the other hand I would be suprised if no country has historically had a census that classification like "Nordic race". ChristianKl❫ 23:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: That censuses have recorded information about race does not actually demonstrate any scientific basis in the concept. Censuses are not a reliable source for scientific consensus, and we would look at scientific publications to determine whether to classify human racial categorizations as social constructs or biological concepts.
How to actually classify people by their ethnicity or racial identity is an altogether separate issue to how race itself is classified, and I think it would be best resolved by making the constraints of ethnic group (P172) stricter and cleaning up its usage. Jc86035 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether the concept has a scientific basis is irrelvant for the question or not the concept can be used. The claim that Harry Potter is a horcrux doesn't have a scientific basis but it's still information we store in Wikidata because there are sources that describe Harry Potter in that way.
To the extend that there are studies that papers about how a term like "Nordic race" is used in the scientific literature and you want to store that knowledge in Wikidata, feel free to use it for claims on Nordic race (Q714773). Fæ didn't reference any such sources. Correctly, modeling what a paper leads to a different discussion then the one we are having here. ChristianKl❫ 11:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Make race (Q3254959) subclass of "obsolete concept"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. However, all entries like "Nordic race" need to have descriptions which make it clear that they cannot be applied to people. The risk is that we will have categories and media on other projects tagged with these Wikidata types as if they were taxonomies of humans that the projects support. It may be that we will need a cross-project guideline if these do get misused. -- (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@: I don't think it would make sense to pursue a cross-project guideline, since such a thing would be hosted on Meta and would have to go through the dreadful Meta RfC process. I think proposing similar guidelines on both Wikidata and Commons would be an easier way of achieving such goals.
I think it would still make sense to indicate that people have identified as being part of racial groups (as opposed to ethnic groups), since this is obviously still fairly commonplace (e.g. people self-identifying as white). This would most likely either require splitting uses ethnic group (P172) based on the value, or broadening its definition to something like "ethnic or racial group" and periodically manually checking values which might not be appropriate (since it might be difficult to do so with a constraint violation while also retaining the current constraint violations). However, a factor that could complicate this is that contemporary usage does not necessarily distinguish race from ethnicity (e.g. "white" would be more or less synonymous with "European American" in the US). Jc86035 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The goals of commons and Wikidata are quite different when it comes to descriptions. In commons you want the person who edits a picture make an editoral judgement about what's the best way to classify the picture. In Wikidata we rather want to describe the different ways that external sources describe the person and we are open for external sources disagreeing and we listing multiple classification. ChristianKl❫ 08:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate your concerns, I do not really think that there is currently an issue. I can't really see any instance consistent misuse of these items. That being said, I think that the higher standards for sources that we have for ethnicity should be enough, as per ChristianKl, and if you are aware of any misuse that can be proven as such by sources, we can fix it. Also I would be against using such descriptions - stating where a term can and cannot be used would be out of item descriptions scope, unlike with property descriptions and property use. Regarding "obsolete concept", I feel that we cannot clasify it as such - even a quick look at the English Wikipedia article will show some conteporary uses of the concept, so it might not be an option. All in all, I think that the best course of action is to use our current policies to ensure that these items won't be misused - if you think that there is a broader gap in the policies, please do share with us your ideas. --Kostas20142 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is the neutral failed hypothesis (Q66970557) such concepts could be made instance or subclass of, with references to the refutation(s). --SCIdude (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

PetScan problem[edit]

Oh generous gods of Wikidata, have mercy on my Luddite soul. I'm not really understanding why this query isn't returning any results. I know there is at the very least articles for Leslie Lamport (Q92613) on both projects in this category. So I know I should get at least one result minimum. But nothing. GMGtalk 18:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The name of category you inputed contains invisible left-to-right mark (Q1022245). It should be removed in your query. ({{ping|Magnus Manske)) PetScan really should automatically remove it as it is found in many places in MediaWiki interface.)--GZWDer (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
http://github.com/magnusmanske/petscan_rs/issues/32 --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Well I'll be damned. I never would have figured that out in a million years. GMGtalk 20:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Resolved now. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

2020-01 Imperium in imperio[edit]

Should Imperium in imperio Q3796835 and state within a state Q65168291 be merged? Involved contributors: @Epìdosis, Borvan53:. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support They are the same concept, as far as I know. However I would like to read the opinion of someone more familiar. --Kostas20142 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Epìdosis 07:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support The meaning is the same. But, in most languages, both expressions (latin and vernacular) are used. So why not... Borvan53 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose one item seems to be about a phrase, the other about a concept (political sciences?) --- Jura 08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Add/replace references?[edit]

I'm not entirely sure where to ask this question, but here goes:

Lots of Wikidata entries have very incomplete or even invalid references that are repeated a number of times, e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089961/ in the genre (P136) entry at Santa Claus: The Movie with just a retrieval date, possibly imported by a bot. I'd like to replace all occurences of this reference with a complete one (w/ title, language, stated in aso.), but doing it manually in hundreds of pages is impossible. I'm using the copy/insert references add-on quite a bit, but even that is unncessarily cumbersome when this should be done with a script. Also, it doesn't work across entries on different pages.

Is there such a thing as a script that can do this? Asav (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a job for WDQS and Quickstatements. The first can find items with references of interest; the second can be used to change the refs - albeit at the cost of deleting and remaking the statement. It's not trivial, since you'll need a SPARQL query - but Wikidata:Request a query - and you'll need to be able to turn the report output into a quickstatements input - see its help. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Asav: This is a very common reference format for imported statements, and there are hundreds of thousands of these from IMDb and MusicBrainz. I don't think it's worth fixing these specifically, because neither database would be considered a reliable source. It would probably be better to remove these entirely once better references have been imported. Right now, they're not doing anyone any harm, and they're not really any worse than the millions of imported from Wikimedia project (P143) uses. Jc86035 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thank you for the heads up! I've looked at both, but I don't think I'd be able to puit together such a script. If somene could make a sample that works on one page, I'd be able to amend it to worsk on other pages as well. Do you know who'd be able to wtite such a sample script?
@Jc86035:You're absolutely wrong on this count. Literally tens of thousands of Wikipedia infoboxes in multiple language editions rely heavily on Wikidata references, so not fixing this simply is not an option. I'm sorry, but your your suggestion is not helpful at all. Asav (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Asav: Sorry, I didn't realize that you meant that the references were showing up in Wikipedia articles. I think not displaying these references would be possible in a Wikidata infobox, and it would probably be a better long-term solution than fixing all of these references which will (hopefully) eventually no longer be necessary. (I'm not sure if nowiki allows user-generated content, since the relevant policies don't seem to mention it, but the English Wikipedia doesn't.) I think for this particular issue it would be sufficient to add a filter in w:no:Mal:Infoboks film/wikidata and its counterparts by using w:no:Module:String. (Edit: The template uses a Wikidata module, so this is incorrect. 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)) Alternatively, if the main issue is that it is unacceptable to show "bare URLs" in references, then the infobox could filter out all such references; and if IMDb is considered acceptable on nowiki (for whatever reason) then I would probably go with what Tagishsimon has suggested.
I would also note that there is an active project to integrate Citoid in Wikidata, so it will soon(-ish) be somewhat easier to generate valid references. Jc86035 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, not fixing a problem means not solving it. This needs a valid solution, not to be hidden away. If you have any constructive suggestions as how to fix the reference search/replace problem, please contribute them. Thank you! Asav (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Asav: The "valid" long-term solution is to remove the references and replace them with better ones. Obviously, that is not currently happening on any sort of meaningful scale, and probably won't happen for some time. Hiding invalid Wikidata references has always been a perfectly acceptable option; the infobox you're currently dealing with already uses that option, since w:no:Module:Wd shows a reference "only if at least "stated in", "reference URL" or "title" is present". Wikidata infoboxes will probably always have to do filtering on statements and references to avoid this sort of issue, e.g. because Wikidata doesn't have any policies or guidance on what sources to use, and so some references used in Wikidata will most likely always be considered unacceptable on some Wikipedias; or e.g. because of the use of valid deprecated statements on items. Jc86035 (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I would also note that w:en:Module:WikidataIB omits references altogether purely because of the issue of formatting references in an acceptable way. Jc86035 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll just disagree with you, so I'm not following up this particular thread anymore, except to note that this is not relevant to just one type of references (e.g. IMDB) or one type of infobox, but a general problem that needs to be fixed.
Is there at least an API that I could access with an external program that would help med search/replace references? If so, where could I find its specifications, and what would I have to do to get access to it? It would only be used manually to access one page at a time, so there'd be no batch processing with all the risks involved. Asav (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
What you want to do is practically only possible with bot code, I'd say. In the past I have done similar modifications to references with pywikibot and it works fairly well, but from my experience you need to adapt the code quite often. Thus, there is no click-and-run ready-to-use script which you just needed to start, because it is simply not that easy of a task.
In the end you'd like to have a reference that matches one of the models defined in Help:Sources, probably "Web page" or "Database" types. Some of the missing reference qualifiers can indeed be complemented automatically (stated in (P248) based on the URL/ext ID ref qualifier, title (P1476) by crawling the source, etc), while others would require to verify the actual information (such as adding missing retrieved (P813) ref qualifiers). For external databases one can technically even try to crawl the source pages and scrape the information to be verified from it, but that is a real hassle and only makes sense in my opinion if there are really many cases from this external database to process. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you; that seems like a viable solution, provided that pywikibot can handle Wikidata entries. What I was thinking is somewhere along the lines:
1. Enter a valid reference to an entry (including title, retrieval date, stated in aso.)
2. use this reference as a source (the existing copy/insefrt reference script already has som reusable code for that), then
3. search for a particular target string (e.g. a barebone reference, such as url only) and
4. replace all occurences of the target with the source.
But I'm not entirely sure you'd need a bot for that; maybe a script would be sufficient as you'd only handle one page at a time? Asav (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The Wikidata:Bots policy is unfortunately not very helpful when you want do decide whether you need a bot account or not. From my experience, admins have different views on the matter, so in order to be on the safe side you probably want to use a bot account for such a task; that means that you need to request approval via Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot once you have a functioning script that can demonstrate its potential over there. Could be helpful anyways.
In pywikibot, you don't really need to re-use code from the copy/insert reference script. Using PAWS, you have already a working pywikibot installation available where only need to create the actual bot script. Something of the order of 100 lines of code would probably already be sufficient. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If IMDb ID (P345) was used in the sample above, the entity could easily include a statement that can provide further details for any reference using it. In general, I don't think reference URLs should be replaced. Obviously, one could complete them. --- Jura 09:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
That's not really the core of the problem, unless the data gathered from IMDB were to replace (i.e. also remove) the current barebones references, which mostly consist only of the URL and retrieval date. But I was using film entries mostly as an example because I've been working on a movie infobox based solely on Wikidata.
However, the problem is rooted much more deeply than this. There are probably hundreds of thousands incomplete references in Wikidata that need to be amended with title (P1476), stated in (P248), reference URL (P854), publication date (P577), page(s) (P304) (for printed articles) and ideally language of work or name (P407). (See discussion thread below). Asav (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

stated in (P248) in vs. reference URL (P854)[edit]

When citing a news article as a source should i include a link to the URL or should i create an item for the news article and link to it using stated in and published in (P1433)? --Trade (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You could create an item for the article, but unless you think the reference is likely to be used for other means beyond solely as a reference, it might be more efficient to just use something like stated in (P248) --> The New York Times (Q9684), with reference URL (P854), along with optional qualifiers like publication date (P577) and page(s) (P304). Of course, some people may argue that every article ever written should have its own item, but I don't have the time nor interest for that. -Animalparty (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
NB: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: creating references is still one of the most important but most neglected aspects on Wikidata. It's often prohibitively tedious to make good citations. Aside from the few tools like Wikidata:SourceMD that quickly and conveniently create journal article citations, we're basically medieval monks, laboriously transcribing information for the greater good. Probably most statements on Wikidata are unsourced directly, and I'm sure a large amount of items have no statements referenced, even if references exist. Thus, nobody should pretend Wikidata is reliable. -Animalparty (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
^I agree. Please don't add barebones references to items. Please use title (P1476), stated in (P248), reference URL (P854), publication date (P577), page(s) (P304) (for printed articles) and ideally language of work or name (P407). Asav (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Animalparty:, Wikipedia already have an easy-to-use reference generator. I wish they'll make it work on Wikidata items as well. --Trade (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I know about those. Wikidata is still quite a clumsy toddler, big on data but weak on data management and user ease, despite being increasingly assumed to be the all-knowing mainframe of all-that-is-Wiki. -Animalparty (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore[edit]

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dams[edit]

Hello. I want to discuss the structure of items of dam (Q12323).

1) Do all items must have instance of (P31)->dam (Q12323)?

2) How to show the type of the dam according to its structure? Please read w:el:Dam#Types of dams. It's not so clear, but it says the types of the dams. We have:

a) arch dam (Q890545) b) gravity dam (Q3497167) c) arch-gravity dam (Q357679) d) barrage (Q350495) e) embankment dam (Q1244922) f) rock-fill dam (Q11350418) (and concrete-face rock-fill dam (Q20180822)) g) earth-fill dam (Q11285593)

It's confusing because some items are about the shape and some about the materials. In wikidata we have that rock-fill dam (Q11350418) and earth-fill dam (Q11285593) are subclass of (P279) of embankment dam (Q1244922). But Wikipedia article don't. There is also dome dam (Q56631985).

Xaris333 (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO:
  1. yes
  2. I think that rock-fill dam (Q11350418) and earth-fill dam (Q11285593) will be always poor stubs. Only one stub, in Japanese, exists among these two topics ! Such articles should be merged inside embankment dam (Q1244922). Best solution, for me : put every thing as a subclass of (P279) of dam (Q12323). More eover, shape and material are always closely linked.
  3. Please also notice beaver dam (Q4878217) and all topic related with it... Borvan53 (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

But how we are going to add the information about the shape and material? Xaris333 (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Also a dam
Don't forget that things like Oosterscheldekering (Q1893089) are dams too (and Dam Square (Q839050) used to be one). They whole waterworks ontology here seems to be a bit messy. A dam is a divider with water on both sides. So Q1816121 is a dam to ("strekdam" in Dutch) and breakwater (Q215635) often too. The current description of dam (Q12323) doesn't seem to cover this. Multichill (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Another dead end in Wikidata. The mess will continue. Xaris333 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is type of dam in ja-wiki. Classification by Japan Dam Foundation.

Category Subcategory Abbreviation
concrete dam (Q11302949) (concrete dam) gravity dam (Q3497167) (gravity dam) G
hollow gravity dam (Q11366848) (hollow gravity dam) HG
arch dam (Q890545) (arch dam) A
arch-gravity dam (Q357679) (arch-gravity dam) GA
multiple-arch dam (Q11341352) (multiple-arch dam) MA
buttress dam (Q1355334) (buttress dam) B
embankment dam (Q1244922) (fill dam) earth-fill dam (Q11285593) (earth-fill dam) E
rock-fill dam (Q11350418) (rock-fill dam) R
combine dam (Q11303142) (combine dam) GF
trapezoid-shaped CSG dam (Q11411941) (trapezoid-shaped CSG dam) CSG

--Afaz (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Maitsavend[edit]

Good afternoon. Is it possible to cancel the entire contribution of this participant in the Tatar language. He adds words that he himself invents. And these words are not in the Tatar language.--Ilnur efende (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ilnur efende, Ymblanter: I don't get it. Why isn't there any message on User talk:Maitsavend asking the user what they're doing? I see three admin noticeboard topics and two blocks, but how is this user supposed to know that they're doing something wrong? If you don't tell people they're doing something wrong, how are they supposed to know? Please assume good faith and start with a clear explanation at User talk:Maitsavend to the user what they're doing wrong and how they should correct this. In case that fails, you can go to Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Multichill (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
My block wat a year ago, I do not remember anything, but I see that I previously posted at their talk page, without any result.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Am I missing something here? I see some interaction about blank items, this edit about a block for vandalism and another block for a month. I don't see any mention of what the user actually did wrong. I just see the broad term "vandalism". How was the user supposed to know this is about incorrect labels/descriptions? Multichill (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
They actually got a warning [4], and the editing history of one of the pages [5] (there were issues in three items simultaneously) is telling.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear user. This user is a participant in the Tatar Wikipedia, as User:Marat-avgust, he does the same thing there, with the help of his bot, many participants have already written to him, but he simply ignores us, and continues to replace terms with those invented by him, or from other languages that are not clear to Tatar-speakers.--Ilnur efende (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ilnur efende: sure, but Wikidata is not the Tatar Wikipedia. You have to start first to try to sort it out with a user directly. If that doesn't work, someone else can step in. For both user accounts (User:Maitsavend and User:Marat-avgust) I don't see any interaction about this on their talk pages. So please leave the user a message, that can be done in any language you believe the user understands. Multichill (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ymblanter, Multichill: there seems to be a difference of editorial views among two ttwiki admins about spellings. The name in the sitelink can, but neededn't be the label at Wikidata. It's unclear why a note about that should be a warning (that's what [6] seems to say).
The edit by @Derslek: reflects their view on ttwiki about the spelling. The repeated edit by Derslek at Wikidata is technically incorrect as it adds the spelling already used as alias as label, but doesn't re-add the second spelling as alias (ttwiki uses the second spelling as a redirect).
Maybe I'm missing something, but calling edits by @Maitsavend: "vandalism" seems inappropriate. While it can happen by otherwise unproductive users, I'd expect a Wikidata admins to know better and present excuses to the contributor(s). --- Jura 08:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not see anything resembling different views. For me, this is a deliberately introduced typo. Tatar is well documented, I do not see how there could be any differences in spelling of this pretty large Russian city. If not, they should have engaged with the conversation when offered a chance.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree about that last point, but I don't think Derslek's approach was correct. I don't read the language, but I don't see why Wikidata should second guess ttwiki admins. If they can be referenced, both spellings should be added to Wikidata. If it's a common typo, probably too. --- Jura 08:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories item that don't linked to any Wikipedia category[edit]

Hello. Do you thing is useful to create items for categories about geographical items (so the category item will connect with geographical item with topic's main category (P910)), even though there is not yet any Wikipedia category in any language? Xaris333 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, "Category" items exist only as a structural necessity to describe entities in WMF projects; they don't have any notability. - Jmabel (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are two cases where we routinely create such category items: when there is a category in a different Wikimedia project (excluding Commons); and when there is both a Commons category and gallery so that both can be linked to (or there are both topic and list items that link to the same commons category). Just creating category items without any sitelinks isn't particularly useful though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Reducing the number of property proposal topics?[edit]

Cross-posting from Wikidata_talk:Property_proposal since I'm not sure that page is watched by many people: We currently have 13 different topics for property proposals - do we really need all of these? I quite like the approach that the status updates use, where the properties are just divided into 'general datatypes' and 'external identifiers' - would that simple split also work here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as i've noticed Authority control exist for external identifiers while Generic exists for everything else --Trade (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
For example Wikidata:Property proposal/gained territory from is in /Place but not /Generic. There are links to /all and /Overview below the topics, but nothing that just combines the non-identifier proposals, although the overview page can be sorted by category. Peter James (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are certain properties where domain knowledge is required to model them well. For people who are specifically interested in linguistics and our lexeme project it's helpful to have a list of properties proposals that deal with lexemes. Other scientific topics are similar in that we don't want properties to be created without expert input. The page for WikiCommons also seems to be valuable because it's a cluster that's interesting to certain people.
Another concern is that it isn't fun to go through a list of 120 properties to comment. I think it's more likely that people like commenting on stale proposals if they come in a chunk with similar topics. ChristianKl❫ 09:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I would support merging "Sport", "Transportation" and "Sister Projects" into Generic as they aren't used much currently. ChristianKl❫ 09:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Authority control might need splitting in two as it gets too long.--- Jura 09:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I add things?[edit]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I used the help button, went through the item tour, and searched through Help:Contents and found absolutely no information on my problem, so I have no idea where else to look for help.

I am simply trying to add *エルニーニョ・南方振動* as the Japanese-language Wikipedia entry for Q7939. When I click edit, it allows me to specify the language but not the page. It won't let me publish without a page. How do I add the page??? -- Mocha2007 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I eventually figured out the issue. Apparently it doesn't like it if I try to type in the whole code (ja) instead of just the first letter (j). Unfortunately there's yet another issue. I have no idea what to do, if someone else knows how to take care of it, they can. -- Mocha2007 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that the Wikipedia article is already site-linked to El Niño Southern Oscillation (Q14524818). If the item El Niño (Q7939) is a better match, it can be moved by deleting it from the first item before adding it to the second. Ghouston (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
These are not identical. El Nino is part of the oscillation with the same name which also includes other phenomena. Looking at the jawiki article the sitelink is in the correct place and nothing should be changed. --SCIdude (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mocha2007: Wikidata collects concepts not articles. Do you understand that El Niño Southern Oscillation (Q14524818) and El Niño (Q7939) are different things, and that the article should point to El Niño Southern Oscillation (Q14524818) rather than El Niño (Q7939)? Have a look at the statements in these two items, especially has part (P527) and part of (P361). --SCIdude (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad contemporary constraint violations when dates have different granularity[edit]

Re: Maison Hamot (Q83192538), Chimpanzee (Q29212866)

Is there anything that can be done about bad constraint violations like "contemporary constraint The entities Chimpanzee and Maison Hamot should be contemporary to be linked through manufacturer, but the latest end value of Maison Hamot is 1999 and the earliest start value of Chimpanzee is 20. century."

Is this another aspect of different understandings as to what "20. century" actually means, or is it something else? - PKM (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I think the contemporary constraint understands "20. century" as 2000 (see the date at [7]). This is after 1999 on Q83192538#P576. User:Abián is currently doing a survey on the way users understand constraint violations. Maybe you want to participate? --- Jura 08:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Actually I think "20. century" is understood as whatever the underlying date was input as -- might be 2000, might be 1901, might be 1950 -- depending on when the statement was created, and whether the inputting user overrode the default. It's not particularly satisfactory. (The other place this comes up as a particular annoyance is in the query output, where the default currently does not deliver the complexity of the date in a form the GUI can interpret). Jheald (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jura1, Jheald: thanks for that insight. Since the date is given as "3e quart 20e siècle" in the source, I changed the date to 1950 with precision = century, keeping refine date = third quarter, and the constraint has disappeared. I'll remember that trick. - PKM (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • And from what I've seen coming across in Tabernacle, the input "20. century" is indeed recorded as "2000[6]" in the underlying data (unless the editor changes it manually). - PKM (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

How to reference?[edit]

There was some debate on Wikidata:Bistro about how to add the reference for the spelling "Écublens" (spelling at Q69716#P1705).

This seems incorrect, as the spelling is only in some pdf hosted on the domain.

What do you think? --- Jura 08:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki by curid?[edit]

Most wikis are linked by page title. Recently the two above were created using MediaWiki revision id. While there are cases where the revision id is needed, in general, wikis aren't linked that way.

The question doesn't seem to have been considered during the property creation discussion.

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Jeb, M2k~dewiki, Looniverse, Karl Gruber, DannyS712: @Pebaryan, Krabina, Mfchris84, Gerwoman:

Can you comment on this aspect?

Unless there are some good arguments, I'd replace the two properties with standard ones. --- Jura 12:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Using stable page ID instead of changing page title
Hello @Jura1:,

also Property:P6228 uses the ID of the page for example.

The page ID (curid) is given on pages like http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Lossa&action=info and does not change over time, while the revision id, e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/?oldid=99548829http://de.wikipedia.org/?oldid=99548703 changes with every revision. (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Qiphvdueh2iv4xuj).

One advantage of using the page ID instead of the page title is that the page ID never changes, while the page title might became invalid if the page is moved on the other wiki and the old title is deleted. So, if a property uses the page title instead of the page ID (given by curid), every time the page title changes, also the property in wikidata would have to be updated (which probably never happens and the links will became invalid, since the people editing and moving pages on other wikis might not be aware that they would also have to update the wikidata property). --M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @M2k~dewiki: Ok, yes "curid" is the "page id" and not the "revision id". I had thought it was the later. (e.g. Wikidata:Project Chat has pageid=394 [8], but my comment above revisionid=1101869279 [9]
Obviously, same seems to apply to P6228.
I guess the question then is if we should change page_name-properties to (new) page_id-properties for most other wikis. --- Jura 13:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: Hej Jura, M2k~dewiki mentioned all the good arguments, why i have chosen the page-id to link these wikis with wikidata and mind that it is not the revision id. for other cases like articles are splitting up, this also will have impact on the corresponding wikidata items, but therefore it will make no difference if we choose page-title or page-id. imho page-id seems to be a little bit more stable. furhtermore i think it's totally ok, to have both here on wikidata, that some properties linking external wikis are using the page-titel (which is more human-friendly to read and also to edit) and others are linking by the page-id. Mfchris84 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Page IDs may be probably more stable, but on most wikis less visible. In any Wikimedia project, if a page is deleted and restored, then a new ID is created, and there are deletion logs for titles but not for IDs so it is not always possible to find them, unless a revision ID or title is known or an index exists. Which is better as an identifier probably depends on the software used and whether there are many page moves or temporary deletions. Peter James (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peter James: ad if a page is deleted and restored, then a new ID is created. In my opinion, usually if a page is "deleted", it is only marked as deleted, just not visible for regular uses anymore (but for admins), if it is restored then it is marked as visible for everyone again. The page ID (also the version history and all revisions) should stay the same. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peter James: as i understand you correctly, you're also pointing out, that both - page titles and page ID has its own advantages and disadvantages, am i right? what do you prefer? if a page is deleted and maybe created under a new page id - who guarantees that the page title will be same? i personally don't disagree with properties linking external wikis by the page title, but i think page id does it also in a good way. each property has its own properties and attributes and at least each own discussion process before creation. --Mfchris84 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Usual I work with article ID, not with lemma or with page ID. The cause, is that the lemma can be changed and the link is broken. The article ID is the most stable connection to a wiki. --K@rl (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It used to be that new IDs were created when pages were restored; looks like it was changed (at least in Wikidata) in 2016 (the page ID of Q22002272 changed; Q22162805 didn't). They can still disappear if there are history merges. Probably the main advantage of IDs is that they are unlikely to be reused for unrelated pages. Peter James (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: what is the difference between an article ID and a page ID? Could you please give an example for both? Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I know it's not the correct definition, but I meaned the version of an article --K@rl (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Karl Gruber: do you mean the revision ID (oldid), e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/?oldid=99548829http://de.wikipedia.org/?oldid=99548703 vs. the page ID (curid), e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=2809853 as discussed above? --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@M2k~dewiki: Correct this ID is not in the sense of a wiki connection. sorry but in German. Auch die Verbindung zum Regiowiki ist der wert aus der "Seiteninfornation". lg K@rl (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I found WikiSkripta ID (P3471) that also uses curid. I indicated that there with Property:P3471#P1552. --- Jura 06:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia[edit]

There is a RfC at Meta: Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia From the reasoning of it:
The m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project plan states as a foregone conclusion that the endpoint of its process will include calling the Foundation and affiliates by the name Wikipedia, admitting, among other obvious issues, that "Wikipedia France," will likely be confused with the French Wikipedia. The community consultation it cites in support apparently did not clearly include this information when it was put to its respondents, and therefore it is not representative of authentic community sentiment on the question. To the extent that the question may have been implied, community agreement with the proposals did not achieve majority support.
Feel free to take part in that RfC. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #399[edit]

Property:P6802[edit]

Is the alternate image, Property:P6802 meant to display in the Wikidata infobox if the primary image is missing? It currently does not. I thought the idea was that if we do not have an image of the person or thing something closely related was meant to display, like a cover of a book they wrote or a work of art they created. Currently we display images of gravestones and coats of arms if no primary image is available, and we have the option of displaying all of them by ticking a box in the infobox even when the primary image is present. For instance at Robert Ensko (Q7344166) since we have no image of him, the image of his book would display. --RAN (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a question probably better asked at Commons:Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. In my opnion, infoboxes should not display tangential images, which can easily attract cruft and trivia. Some people would rather have infoboxes display every conceivable iota of information imaginable. Looks matter. Less is more. And in the case of Mr. Ensko, I'd argue it's better to have no image than an image of a book. Inboxes should display only the most exemplary images, not any old image available. -Animalparty (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia 2030 community discussions: Influence our shared future![edit]

From today on to 21 February, the last facilitated round of movement discussions on the Wikimedia 2030 recommendations will be held. I created a dedicated page: Wikidata:Strategy 2018-20. These conversations offer the opportunity to review the movement strategy draft recommendations, and discuss how Wikidata community would be affected as well as how well they align with the strategic direction.

Wikimedians across the world have been shaping the 2030 strategy since 2017. The first phase was aimed at establishing a shared strategic direction: that by 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. This vision of Wikimedia’s future is shared by all of us, irrespective of background (such as home wiki, culture, etc.) or contributing model (some of us don’t edit, and yet, do take part in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission).

Wikimedia 2018–2020 is all about recommendations that answer the question: what systemic changes in our worldwide movement are needed to advance this vision? These new draft recommendations are intentionally broad and focused on long-term impact. However, they will inevitably be familiar to many of you. Your previous feedback was taken into account, and the recommendations are based upon both 2017 and 2019 discussions reports.

Since July 2018, a group of more than 90 volunteers from across the Wikimedia movement have worked to produce various drafts of recommendations to support this change. This effort is now reaching its final stage, and we invite you to review and discuss the new strategy recommendations. This final set synthesizes all previous drafts, and will offer a clear and condensed product for your review.

After the discussions, the recommendations will be finalized, and presented at the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin. Soon after that, the implementation phase will begin.

You can learn more about the process of forming these recommendations and the next steps in the Signpost’s text by Risker, and in a dedicated FAQ on Meta-Wiki.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)