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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
A place to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.

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

For realtime chat rooms about Wikidata, see Wikidata:IRC.
Start a new discussion
Edit
On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/08.

Non-unique statement id in Q85046372

[edit]

According to Wikidata documentation: [stmt_id is] An arbitrary identifier for the Statement, which is unique across the repository.

But going to the Wikidata webpage for Secondary limb lymphedema (Q85046372) and looking in the page source, we can see that Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051 is referenced twice, every time with a different underlying data: 

<div id="Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051" class="wikibase-statementview wikibase-statement-Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051 wb-normal">...</div>
...
<div id="Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051" class="wikibase-statementview wikibase-statement-Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051 wb-normal">...</div>

Both ids show up in cites work (P2860): Arm morbidity after sector resection and axillary dissection with or without postoperative radiotherapy in breast cancer stage I. Results from a randomised trial. Uppsala-Orebro Breast Cancer Study Group (Q73307092) and Case-control study to evaluate predictors of lymphedema after breast cancer surgery (Q37410695). 195.191.163.76 07:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REST API response for the two P2860 statements with identical IDs:
curl -s https://www.wikidata.org/w/rest.php/wikibase/v0/entities/items/Q85046372 | jq '.statements.[].[] | select(.id == "Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051")'
JSON object from API response
{
  "id": "Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051",
  "rank": "normal",
  "qualifiers": [
    {
      "property": {
        "id": "P1545",
        "data-type": "string"
      },
      "value": {
        "type": "value",
        "content": "10"
      }
    },
    {
      "property": {
        "id": "P1545",
        "data-type": "string"
      },
      "value": {
        "type": "value",
        "content": "13"
      }
    }
  ],
  "references": [
    {
      "hash": "7c52980f6382f58bc9ff3831c60ec37b6e0618c0",
      "parts": [
        {
          "property": {
            "id": "P248",
            "data-type": "wikibase-item"
          },
          "value": {
            "type": "value",
            "content": "Q5188229"
          }
        },
        {
          "property": {
            "id": "P356",
            "data-type": "external-id"
          },
          "value": {
            "type": "value",
            "content": "10.1016/J.LPM.2009.06.023"
          }
        },
        {
          "property": {
            "id": "P854",
            "data-type": "url"
          },
          "value": {
            "type": "value",
            "content": "https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1016/J.LPM.2009.06.023"
          }
        },
        {
          "property": {
            "id": "P813",
            "data-type": "time"
          },
          "value": {
            "type": "value",
            "content": {
              "time": "+2024-07-15T00:00:00Z",
              "precision": 11,
              "calendarmodel": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1985727"
            }
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "property": {
    "id": "P2860",
    "data-type": "wikibase-item"
  },
  "value": {
    "type": "value",
    "content": "Q73307092"
  }
}
{
  "id": "Q85046372$70E829CD-2D80-48D1-BB71-8EE2B5C22051",
  "rank": "normal",
  "qualifiers": [],
  "references": [],
  "property": {
    "id": "P2860",
    "data-type": "wikibase-item"
  },
  "value": {
    "type": "value",
    "content": "Q37410695"
  }
}
--Dhx1 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to repost this at Wikidata:Report a technical problem or open a Phabricator ticket. @Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) is always very helpful. William Graham (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
reposted it in Report a technical problem 195.191.163.76 11:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late response; I was out of the office. I've seen your message and will leave feedback at WD:RATP -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with an item that seems to conflate two or more people

[edit]

This item Jo Jo Smith (Q99646571) seems to conflate at least two people, a baseball player and a musician. What should one do here? StarTrekker (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is identical to the above: statements need to be moved from one item to another. Do you feel like you can tease out which statements and interwiki links apply to which person? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The item was based on https://id.worldcat.org/fast/405596/ for which the source seems to have been https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n97866648.html, but it looks like any identifier with a matching name was added. There are three people: baseball player Joseph Edward Smith (Baseball Cube player ID and Trading Card Database person ID), a musician (Discogs 4903638 and Australian Women's Register), and jazz dancer Joseph Benjamin Smith (the other identifiers; probably the intended subject). I couldn't find existing items for any of these three, but when searching I found another conflation: Joseph Edward Smith (Q105395287). Peter James (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Conflation of two people. Best to create new items for all those people, move/copy statements to the appropriate new items and then nominate the conflation items for deletion. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:D861:7C54:F26A:7398

"Default Values for All Languages" Feature - Share Your Feedback!

[edit]

Hello,

Last week, we announced that a limited release of the “default values for all languages” feature—introducing the language code "mul" for labels and aliases—will soon be coming to Wikidata. We are currently working on improvements for “mul” in the Termbox on Item pages. We’ve already received feedback from some of you on the discussion pages, but we’d also love to hear from those who prefer to provide anonymous feedback.

Please share your thoughts on this 5-10 minute anonymous survey until August 4: https://wikimedia.sslsurvey.de/Wikidata-default-values-feedback.

If you have any questions or concerns feel free to let us know in this Phabricator ticket (phab:T356169)

Many thanks for your time. -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE)It seems I can't use the search box to search for items that only have a default label (mul). See for instance Casey Szilvia (Q128347219). The search term 'Casey Szilvia' doesn't show item.
P.S. I also wrote this further down on this page. Sabelöga (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates: Q56297769 can be merged into Q1121708

[edit]

Q56297769 can be merged into Q1121708

If somebody can do this, I'd greatly appreciate and try to learn from it so I may do it myself next time :) TimBorgNetzWerk (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TimBorgNetzWerk: There is also breakdown (Q19977811). failing (Q56297769) is stated to be a subclass of failure (Q1121708) (as is breakdown (Q19977811) and several other items). These two at least do seem the same to me but evidently somebody in the past thought they were different (from the subclass relation). Perhaps it's due to historical wikilinks that are no longer an issue? There's a dewiki link on failing (Q56297769) and none on failure (Q1121708) so they could be merged now if we agree it's the right thing to do. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe failure (Q1121708) is the result of failing (Q56297769). Two different things. Failing is the state of failing. Failure is the result of failing. AHIOH (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see these changes. At least for me, now it seems (more) consistent. Thanks! TimBorgNetzWerk (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property proposal for person/lifespan

[edit]

I'm attempting to create my very first property proposal (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/lifespan), and have undoubtedly thoroughly messed it up, but hopefully not irretrievably. I wish to start recording as a property of certain persons, their lifespan as recorded on funerary monuments. E.g., so-and-so lived X years, Y months, and Z days. This requires, what appears to me, a data type not otherwise used in WikiData, namely a time duration. The existing Time data type merely represents a single point in time, and thus is not suitable here. For the moment, I've selected 'monolingual text' as the data type, with a regex constraining the allowed values (conforming to the ISO 8601 standard for such values). But I've no idea whether I've done any of this correctly. If someone more knowledgeable in how to craft property proposals could kindly critique my effort and offer suggestions on how to improve it, I would be most grateful. Thank you. Sarcanon (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, before anyone asks, the persons for which I will be adding this information will be from classical antiquity, and by convention, dates of birth and/or dates of death were never recorded, whereas the person's lifespan frequently was. Sarcanon (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's age of subject at event (P3629) which can be used as a qualifier on an unknown date of death. Ghouston (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUOW

[edit]

KUOW (Q6339681) is just a separately licensed transmitter for KUOW-FM (Q6339679). No programming content of its own, really just a repeater. I suppose it still merits a separate item, but I suspect the two items should somehow be related to one another, which they seem not to be currently. - Jmabel (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dementia (Q83030)

[edit]

Please add [Overtreatment of diabetes in older people] to dementia risk factor list. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39093563/. Thanks Nirts (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OsiriX (Q1301762) and Category:OsiriX (Q21451891)

[edit]

Hi. How does this works. Should they be merged or not? And if not perhaps someone can tell me why? MGA73 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q1301762 is the main item, Q21451891 is an instance of Wikimedia category (Q4167836) and exists to connect any categories to each other, and link them to the main item with the property category's main topic (P301). They shouldn't be merged, but if it only had a Commons category, that category could be moved to the main item and Q21451891 could be deleted (the Commons sitelink is in a category item if a separate item is necessary). I don't know if the Japanese Wikibooks category can also be moved, as other Wikibooks categories I checked were only connected to category items or were not in Wikidata. Peter James (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, only objects of the same type should be merged resp. connected to each other.
  • articles with same articles in various languages (including galleries on commons), describing the same entity (a person, a film, a geographical object, a taxon, ...)
  • categories with categories (including categories on commons)
  • disambiguation items with disambiguation items
  • family name items with family name items
  • firstname items with with first name items
  • lists items with list items
  • ...
The different objects can be cross-referenced (e.g. list related to category, main topic of the category, ...), so its easier to navigation. On Commons, the wikidata infobox shows the content of the item of the main topic when the commonscat is connected to a category item and the two items are cross-referenced.
Often, commonscats are directly connected to the item of main topic when there is no commonsgallery and not yet an item for the category.
M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Help:Merge M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for default labels (mul)

[edit]

It seems I can't use the search box to search for items that only have a default label (mul). See for instance Casey Szilvia (Q128347219). The search term 'Casey Szilvia' doesn't show the item. Sabelöga (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Help:Default_values_for_labels_and_aliases#Where_can_I_report_problems? -> Help_talk:Default_values_for_labels_and_aliases#Searching_for_default_labels_(mul) M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional languages cluttering suggestions

[edit]

No doubt this is supposed to be helpful, but it is not. When attempting to type in a field, I don't need Finnish or Spanish suggestions showing up alongside English. Disable it immediately. Abductive (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circa

[edit]

How to add note to value for population (P1082) if value is circa (Q5727902). Eurohunter (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the specific instance you're planning on using? E.g. if it was c. 1709, then you could use "1700s" and just have that level of precision. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: population (P1082) has value 8500 but how to indicate that it's circa (Q5727902) (more or less than 8500). Eurohunter (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. You can add sourcing circumstances (P1480) with circa (Q5727902). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
circa (Q5727902) must only be used for dates. For numbers, you should use approximately (Q60070514). Ayack (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@koavf:, @Ayack: Thanks, done. Eurohunter (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order

[edit]

My main interest on Wikidata is listed buildings. One of the things I do routinely is to change the instance of (P31) property from the generic architectural structure (Q811979) or building (Q41176) to the more specific house (Q3947) or school building (Q1244442) or whatever seems most applicable. But sometimes a building has had two or more uses over time: for example, a stately home that now houses a school. In such cases I add "house" with end time (Q24575125) set to "unknown" and "school building" with start time (Q24575110) also set to unknown (or to date values if they're available). However, it strikes me that this doesn't formally define the order in which these uses occurred. Should I also be setting series ordinal (P1545) or ranking (P1352) against each value to formally define the ordered life-history of the building (and if so, which)? There's an example at Sheffield High School for Girls (Q26682931). Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dates should be sufficient, as SPARQL will sort by date. Ranking implies importance, and series ordinal implies no overlap. Using them in a few places will muddy queries elsewhere. PS I do prefer instance of (P31) over has use (P366) {{Vicarage (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the dates when the use changed are usually unknown (at least without major research), but the order of use (e.g. "house, then school") is known and recorded in the listing. There generally isn't (in practice) an overlap, so maybe series ordinal is better? Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fort that becomes an art museum remains a fort, a church that becomes a museum, less so. But the ordinal doesn't affect that, so perhaps its the way to go. It certainly does no harm, unlike splitting the functionality of P31 and P366, which is a PITA for queries. A filter for ordinal >1 or missing would be handy for original purposes of buildings, and that would be useful. Vicarage (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could use instance of destroyed building or structure (Q19860854) or former building or structure (Q96084375), and then use replaced by. This allows you to apply the statements to the appropriate object and timeframes without conflating the data. This becomes particularly important when it comes to modelling the architects, builders, owners, historical designations, and so on. AHIOH (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I glossed over the main factor there of the building remaining. As the building has changed uses, the type of building in regards to its use changes as well. The building in regards to its form remains the same of course (it remains a subclass of that kind). It becomes an instance of a different class of object and therefore is still a replacement of the former entity or concept of the building as a whole. AHIOH (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Individual buildings should use instance of (P31) and not subclass of (P279). Only a building raised to its foundations can really be considered destroyed, if remodelled its history should be recorded in a series of instance statements, not different items. I'm having a discussion at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q33506 as how we might handle museum institutions and their buildings, with a light touch so we don't need to double up entries. Vicarage (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with trying to model it that way is that it moves the data to the qualifiers. In OpenStreetMap there is a similar issue where modelling the history of an item with key values becomes problematic when it comes to determining whether the qualified data is transferrable or applies to which aspect of the object at a given point in time.
In practical terms, a school is one type of building and a library is another. A school and a library are two different things. When it changes functions, you say "it is now a library rather than a school.". The concept class changes. It is now an instance of former school. While you could model it as an instance of school and of library with start and end time qualifiers, this would mean that all characteristics of the item would by default apply to both instances at all times unless qualified with a particular time frame. This would also make it so associations would need to be scrutinized as to whether the one applies to the instance, the other or both (owners, organizations, members, etc.)
By modelling them as separate items it does not change the fact that they were still located at the same building. The data on the school item simply pertains to the concept of the building as a school during the time frame of its inception to when it ceased to function as a school institution. It then becomes an instance of former educational institution (Q96086516) and is replaced by (P1366) ("continues the item by replacing it in its role") by a different type of instance (library) with its own inception date and associated data.
This is similar to commercial entities that are merged into other companies. Once it transforms into a new concept of entity it is no longer an instance of the concept, but a former concept.
Trying do so otherwise would mean that all the companies that ever merged into another company would all be the same instance.
Consider a tree. If I convert it to firewood, is it still an instance of tree? Since it is no longer a valid concept of tree, it converts to an instance of firewood even though it is still a instance of type of wood.
The advantage to modeling it the way I described is that it makes it much more straightforward to associate the data to the correct concept and timeframe. It allows to model the reasons, causes, and effects related to the transformations of an entity from one concept to another. The transformation of the concept of an item can be mapped as its own data point as well such as "How many schools were replaced by libraries as a result of lack of teachers?"
Interesting topic, I'll try to read more into that talk you linked and look forward to your responses. AHIOH (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had similar discussions with ships, with change of use or country for warships gets complicated. But having single items per hull seems best, and a ship's past is key to its present. Caveats by date get messy, so we use operator (P137) as a qualifier as an easy filter. I'm always wary of suggestions that splitting items is a solution to complexity, as then updates that should been applied twice often get missed. Vicarage (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying . It's true the building itself as an instance of physical object does not intuitively make sense to be represented as separate instances as its physical form has not altered. As you mentioned, this would also create the issue of needing to copy the building properties among different instances of usage. I also realized my statement this "this would mean that all characteristics of the item would by default apply to both instances" was not really an issue. I forgot the operator (P137) property allows one to specify an organization which can then be qualified with a time frame as well as the other linked items rather than identifiers or values specific to the building. And as the organizations have a location/headquarters property, it allows the information on each to be separate while still linked. Thanks for helping change my mind, had to think through that one for a bit. @Vicarage AHIOH (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider creating specific entries of Hades characters

[edit]

(I posted this on the talk page of the Hades entry but didn't get responses). The entry on the video game Hades directly links to the Greek gods' entries (under the "Characters" property). We should consider creating entries specific to Hades characters and change the links to the Hades-specific entries, for consistency with entries of other media using derivative versions of characters. Draheinsunvale (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out that I can edit myself but I don't know if I can create a large amount of Hades-specific entries simultaneously to replace the current entries. Draheinsunvale (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will now edit the page to remove most of the character entries until the aforementioned specific entries exist. Draheinsunvale (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #639

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-08-05. Please help Translate.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • Numberguy6Bot - Task: Add links to Wiktionary categories in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Russian.
    • UmisBot - Task: This bot will add string representations of units of measurement to units of measurement Wikidata pages.
    • ZLBot - Task: request SPARQLs for RAG.

Events

  • Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group call 6 August, 2024: We have our next LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group Call on Tuesday, 6 August, 2024 at 9am PT / 12pm ET / 17:00 UTC / 6pm CET (Time zone converter). Please join us for a Busy Summer Fun Wikidata Editing Hour, an hour of uninterrupted Wikidata editing time to work on your own Wikidata projects. Agenda.
  • Wikimania is August 7-10. Here is a curated a list of Wikimania sessions focused around Wikidata, or have *some* connection to Wikidata: 2024:Program/Wikidata. Please add to the list if something is missing.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Forage - a user script that provides an additional editing interface that makes editing easier, by showing the expected properties for a page (based on its "instance of" values), and providing simple inputs to let users add values for any such property. To install Forage, just add the following line to the common.js subpage under your user page on Wikidata, i.e. wikidata.org/wiki/User:Your username here/common.js: importScript('User:Techwizzie/forage.js');

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • The Wikibase REST API, introduced last year on Wikidata, is progressing towards version 1, aiming for a comprehensive release by the end of 2024. We're seeking community feedback to enhance the current API and plan future developments. Please share your thoughts on this page: Feedback on the Wikibase REST API (July/August 2024).
  • Abdulai Yorli Iddrisu (WMDE) has joined the Software Communication team (SCoT) at Wikimedia Deutschland as an intern until the end of September 2024. Welcome Yorli!
  • Wikidata now has a shiny new landing page for developers: Wikidata:For developers

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • mul language code: The new language code has been rolled out in a limited way. We are looking through feedback now.
  • mul release: The full release of the "mul" language code feature to Wikidata, originally scheduled for August 12, may be delayed as we have uncovered a few issues during testing that could potentially block the scheduled release.

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

Weekly Tasks

Entries marked for deletion, what can I do?

[edit]

I spend quite some time adding popular online marketing podcasts (see my contribution list) that are all in talk show format, episodes and prominent talk show guests and a lot of them now show inbound links from a "marked for deletion" list. From what I understand my entries miss sitelinks to match the notability guidelines. I am quite new to wikidata and don't understand how I can e.g. add the podcasts e.g to the list of german podcasts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_podcasts) so they fullfill the requirements or what else to do. Can someone please advise how to handle this? It is quite frustrating to spend a lot of time adding stuff and than see it end up on a "marked for deletion" list. PodcastMage (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WD:N. "Sitelinks" means that the object has its own page on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project, and it's unlikely that that will be true for these. So you should focus on criteria 2 and 3: either provide "serious and publicly available references" or show how it "fulfills a structural need". You should comment at the deletion request so that admins can judge whether notability is satisfied. Dogfennydd (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. I commented on the deletion request. PodcastMage (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to describe printed work?

[edit]

There is general term publication (Q732577) for any published, than physically printed work and printed book (Q11396303) is limited to just book. How to call any of such printed release of newspaper or any release looking like this? Eurohunter (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter Do you mean periodical issue (Q21995230) ? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vojtěch Dostál: I don't think so. It don't indicate paper release. In case of music there are CD, vinyl or digital version, in case of books there is paper and digital version. Eurohunter (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

population (P1082)

[edit]

Need to use population (P1082) as qualifier (Q54828449). Is there any other option to use, or it needs to be added to exceptions? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two values for population (P1082) newest and highest, and each of them has the own date. How to add them? Eurohunter (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use quantity (P1114). Make separate claims with different dates. Rank the newest data as preferred. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are museums buildings and tourist attractions?

[edit]

I would say they are. But others argue at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q33506#Museums_need_the_properties_of_museum_building that a museum is a non-corporeal institution, not a building, and that 'materiality' is not required for a tourist attraction. I would argue that a museum, like a theatre, is a building I can visit, and while we can distinguish between museum_building and museum_institution, museum (Q33506), as currently used on WD, is both. Vicarage (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in my opinion a museum (theater, company, school, ...) can
M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Import etiquette Q

[edit]

Hello, Wikidata novice but Wikipedia veteran here. At the UK Geography WikiProject we've been discussing the potential to import UK census population data into Wikidata and call it from the infobox that's used on articles about towns and villages, so it doesn't need manually maintaining on every page. I've been getting to grips with the project, I've watched the tutorials for OpenRefine, and I've got to the point where I'm pretty confident with how to do the import. I've got the population data for parishes in in England and Wales from the Office for National Statistics, I've matched them to their Q-items (using the ONS's GSS code (2011) (P836) to ensure correct matches) in OpenRefine, I've set up the schema and sense-checked the preview. But the OpenRefine interface warns me "Large edit batches should be submitted for bot review first."

So the question that I haven't been able to find answered anywhere in the help content is: what's a large edit? Or rather, what's the etiquette for batch edits generally? I've got 11,344 rows, each one adding (or updating, if the number is identical) a single population (P1082) (with reference) to a different UK town or village item (equivalent to this manual edit). If I hit upload on 11,344 properties, will people shout/frown at me? Do I need to get my batch bot reviewed? (Would I even be able to batch upload with OpenRefine, I assume my Wikipedia account confirmation status doesn't carry between project sites?) Thanks, Steinsky (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to
OpenRefine can use
for the upload, examples can be found at
There seem to be similar, comparable batches. M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the OP can use Quick Statements, then 11k items is not many, I've done 250k in batches, and it was easy to dribble them in at 1/second. No permissions needed, easy to check for errors. Vicarage (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I can see others doing similar batches in 'Recent changes', so I'll follow the be bold rule and set it running. Steinsky (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder! Vote closing soon to fill vacancies of the first U4C

[edit]
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is closing soon. It is open through 10 August 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. If you are eligible to vote and have not voted in this special election, it is important that you vote now.

Why should you vote? The U4C is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community input into the committee membership is critical to the success of the UCoC.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project to support children with disabilities

[edit]

How can i start a project to support children with disabilities?

Inconsistencies in the list of countries by continent

[edit]

I try to list the sovereign state (Q3624078) included (has part(s) (P527)) in each continent (Q5107) with an ISO code (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code (P298)}).

See the query 

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?country ?countryLabel ?code WHERE {  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5107;    (wdt:P527*) ?country.  ?country wdt:P31 wd:Q3624078;    wdt:P298 ?code.  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". } }
Try it!

I find many countries included to two different continents.

One source of error is do to the following statement: Africa (Q15)has part(s) (P527)Middle East (Q7204). This leads to the misleading consequence that Israel belongs to Africa. I propose to remove the statement.

Another problem is that France, Chili, and the United States are considered part of Oceania.

Finally, we have a problem with countries in Central America. They are considered to be part of both South America and North America.

How could we have a consistent list of countries by continent? PAC2 (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More inconsistencies: Denmark and the Netherlands are missing (because the constituent countries are included in the continents, not the sovereign state), Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and several countries in the Middle East are missing, Russia is included in Europe but not Asia, and there is no consistency with countries with limited recognition - Palestine and Taiwan are there, but Kosovo is not. Peter James (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter James You're right. It isn't always easy to find missing values.
I've written a small notebook to explore the data : https://observablehq.com/@pac02/list-of-countries-by-continent-in-wikidata.
How could we have consistent data for this simple query? is there any reliable source on this topic? PAC2 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey and Russia do span continents. And lots of island chains are either of full status, like Tahiti and Hawaii, or a muddle of dependant territory rules. I think your query should expect to reflect that, use of preferred values won't help here. Vicarage (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK @Vicarage what would you suggest? PAC2 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello,

What's the correct way to handle dead links in official website (P856)? I've read through official website (P856)'s talk page and old project chats but not really found a concrete answer.

I'm working on Emma Lewell-Buck (Q16190712) and the listed address is dead. The correct one is `http://lewellbuck.com/` (from their English wikipedia page). UndefinedRachel (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixed bag. (Some of the issues relate to how templates on various Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects consume the statements. Whether they interpret the start and end date qualifiers.) I think one of the more "correct" ways is to add a start date and end date qualifier for the previous URL, leaving it with a normal rank. Then create a statement for the current official URL with a start date qualifier and a preferred rank. William Graham (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndefinedRachel: William got to the reply while I was making an example edit. Adding dates is great if you can find them, but they're not always apparent, even with archive.org. I've always seen the old website deprecated, but I suppose preferring the new site works too. My only concern would be a template or other end use interpreting a non-deprecated link as still valid. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I'm of a mixed opinion of whether deprecated rank or preferred rank is better, but I have definitely done it your way in the past. In general, I've seen complaints on just about every viable model of dealing with old links, so I don't feel extremely strong about either. William Graham (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q20712482

[edit]

Ayahos (Q20712482) is some sort of weird conflation (which is messing up Commons via a Wikidata Infobox). It conflates a ferry terminal (on Commons) with a Native American "spirit power" on en-wiki. - Jmabel (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:Special:Diff/670436866 is the ultimate reason for the conflation. Not great Commons category – yeah, indeed. --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

made-for-TV film whose subsequent re-runs have been divided into seperate television series episodes

[edit]

Do we have any items or properties that can be used to indicate this? And to indicate the relationship between the movie and the seperate episodes? Trade (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movie in question--Trade (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I don't understand what's the difference between these badges. "sitelink to redirect" description says "do not apply this badge manually; if you manually apply a badge you likely want to apply "intentional sitelink to redirects" instead". so "sitelink to redirect" is only for bots? if we add a wikilink that's actually a redirect we should use "intentional sitelink to redirect" instead? Did I understand that correctly? Why though? Or is it something else? The thing is, it's possible to add "sitelink to redirect" manually and I see users actually add that one, so what's the point? Tehonk (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I was thinking the same and some items have both badges. Eurohunter (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2224222854"