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.
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 2024/04.

Problems with naive user merges with Distributed game: duplicate authors[edit]

I just spent several hours going through and fixing this new user's edits which were almost all merges of human items based on Magnus Manske's "The Distributed Game (88): Duplicate authors #distributed-game". Of the 59 merges done, I assessed 26 as wrong or unjustified - 44%. Many of them were merging people with wildly different names (the tool seems to only check last name and at least one matching initial?). I know there's some underlying logic regarding common co-authors, but whatever it's doing something there is broken. Can the tool be limited to only at least auto-confirmed users who have done something else in Wikidata first? Does anybody have another suggestion here? It's certainly a useful tool, and a (slight) majority of the edits here were good, but it's an awful lot of work to fix bad merges - and that would have been worse if I had waited until the bot redirected all the associated articles to the new items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled by experienced editors have to spend hours on a cleanup that should have been unnecessary. The game has a tiny notice that's barely noticeable: "Please make sure that the items are really about the same entity!". Gamifying merging is giving people the impression that this is something they can take lightly (!). In my opinion it's not enough to limit this game to people who are autoconfirmed. The message should be visually more noticeable and read something like "It is important to make sure the two items really are the same before merging, so please click on each of the links to examine their contents before merging." Along with a "Please confirm you've read this and understood" labelled checkbox, that saves the confirmation to the user's settings. This way it's harder to claim ignorance. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. @Magnus Manske: Can the labeling be at least changed? Or maybe the underlying logic needs a look? It shouldn't be merging "Yonghoon Choi" with "Yunsoo Choi", or "Chang-Bao Li" with "Chuanyou Li" for example. Also I have a concern that one bad merge will lead to others - if two people were not actually coauthors of the same person, but a bad merge makes them seem like they are, this can have cascading effects. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also had to spend a fair bit of time recently checking and unmerging edits made via this game and I echo the points raised above. For me, it shouldn't be possible to merge items with different ORCID iD (P496) claims and a constraint to prevent the merger of such items would avoid most of the issues I have encountered. Having looked at the tool, I am suprised how little guidance is given about how to identify items that can safely be merged. There really must be a warning that the information provided in the tool is insufficient to make an informed decision about whether two item represent the same entity. Have to admit I'm not a fan of gamification but this trivialises something that is actually quite complicated, hence the amount of time required to fix the incorrect merges. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will amend the message in the game, and have a look at the duplicate candidate generator. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this. It really is useful to merge duplicates, but bad merges can be quite hard to fix. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sic19, Magnus Manske: A followup - I've been tracking these edits recently and they seem much improved, though there are still several problem cases. One frequent problem now is caused by a Wikidata entry based on an ORCID id where the name does not match the ORCID - rather somehow the name is that of a different author on some co-written articles. I'm guessing there are some data flow issues between ORCID and publishers and Crossref and whatever data source was used for wikidata imports (usually Europe PubMedCentral?). Can some sort of look-up be done on the ORCID id's before merging to confirm the names actually match? Not sure what best steps here are. There are definitely a lot of duplicate ORCID cases too and it would be a shame not to put together those duplicates on our end. Another common case I'm running into is where two people have the same name, and one of their ORCID records includes papers from the other person, usually because the paper list was supplied by some institutional search rather than the person themselves. Hard to fix issues where ORCID records themselves are incorrect. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most active Wikidata WikiProjects?[edit]

What are the most active WikiProjects in Wikidata?

"Active" may include number of participants, number of WikiProject talk page posts, size and frequency of contribution to WikiProject campaigns, development of project documentation, or whatever else indicates activity.

Thanks for any suggestions. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, during the pandemic it might have been Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19.
Other projects are for example:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, often wikidata projects are discussed in the wikipedia language versions, for example:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings - PKM (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:WikiProject Manuscripts - PKM (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both I cross posted this to Wikidata_talk:WikiProjects#Most_active_WikiProjects so that others would find it. I would not have guessed about some of these. Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding item for a book that is self-published and has ISBN[edit]

About adding Wikidata item for a book that is self-published and has ISBN: is this allowed? I seem to recall Wikisource does not allow self-published works; does Wikidata allow them? If there were no requirement of ISBN, I can see problems (too many Internet pages could lay claim to be self-published works worthy of a Wikidata item), but the item I am considering to add does have an ISBN. (I am not the self-publisher.) Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely for a self-published book to be notable. But most books with a proper publisher are probably ok assuming you add a couple decent references (identifiers count here). ISBN doesn't establish notability by itself. You can find the policy here.
There are some exceptions of course. Andy Weir's “The Martian” is self-published for instance. This was used as a basis for a major movie.
You gave me a good idea by the way. I think I'm going to add a "complex constraint" to check for known self-publishing houses. Infrastruktur (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course WD has the distinction between the creative work and the published physical book. As more authors start with self-publishing and if successful either stick with the model or get picked up by others, I think its likely we will have notable works with both self-published and publishing house editions, with different ISBNs. And I'd be wary of making judgement calls as to which commercial organisations are 'proper' publishers or are merely assisting with the self-publishing revolution. A work that features in its genre websites, like Internet Speculative Fiction Database (Q2629164) seems a good candidate irrespective of publishing method. Vicarage (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikisource will allow certain kinds of self-published works, provided they meet stringent criteria, and some self-published works have historical, scientific, or cultural notability.
But when you say "book", I assume you mean a specific edition of that work, since there is an ISBN? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean ISBN 0954029100, found in Google Books and Amazon. I have only a tentative grasp of the "book" vs. "edition" distinction; my guess--but only a guess--is that I mean an edition.
Wikidata:Notability item 2--the one that could theoretically apply--is too generic/vague for me to understand. Thank you all for answers so far. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When should I add wiktionary sitelink?[edit]

I tried to add hy:wikt:աստղ to star (Q523) and got a warning about notability. It said that "Wikidata's notability policy does not allow links to Wiktionary entries unless the interlanguage links cannot be automatically provided. By clicking on "save", you confirm that this is the case. In general, connecting Wiktionary words to Wikidata concepts is not correct." is there any policy page where I can read about this? How do I decide if it is or it is not okay to add Wiktionary link? ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, documentation can be found at Wikidata:Wiktionary/Sitelinks M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @M2k~dewiki. ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve now reverted the edit and also posted an edit request that the mentioned documentation page should be linked in the error message you saw. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with different Google Knowledge Graph IDs for same item[edit]

Atoiya (Q4286366) has two values for Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671), triggering a Potential Issue. The first value, /g/12264jtz, was added by Lockalbot (@Lockal:); the second value, /g/122z2rt5, was added when 芝高 merged Q15621844 into Atoiya (Q4286366) (to Q15621844, the value had been added by Lockalbot, too).

What is the best way to deal with this? Judging from the descriptions of the items prior to merging, it seems that Q15621844 referred to the cape (and as part of Japan, which has an ongoing dispute over the region in question with Russia, which controls it) while Q4286366 has the English description “human settlement in Yuzhno-Kurilsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia”. Should the two items be unmerged perhaps? --Data Consolidation Officer (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the separate item for the cape. Both Google Knowledge Graph IDs are currently "Cape Atoiya" with no additional information so I don't know if they should both be in the cape item. Google Knowledge Graph has many duplicates, sometimes for the same name and others with different names; this is usually the result of merging pages and is not an issue - the constraint should probably be removed or have deprecated rank similar to VIAF ID (P214). Peter James (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should consider removing the constraint limiting an item to a single Google Knowledge Graph identifier. There are often multiple knowledge graph ids describing the same thing. Iamcarbon (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese vs. (non-existent) European Portuguese[edit]


For a long time, I have had doubts about the use of label in the Portuguese language. We are well aware that there are considerable differences between the Portuguese spoken on both sides of the Atlantic; Brazilian Portuguese is somewhat different from European Portuguese, especially concerning the spelling of words, as well as vocabulary to refer to certain concepts. I notice that alongside the language Portuguese, there is Brazilian Portuguese, but there is not European Portuguese. That being said, my main question is which variant should be given priority in labeling the language Portuguese in Wikidata items. Should it be the Portuguese spoken by 200 million people, or the one spoken by the rest of the Lusophone world, which does not even reach half of its total? The same happens with description. Should priority be given to the first term used? Portuguese is a term that generically refers to various variants of the same language, whether it is the Portuguese of 19th-century Brazilian writer Machado de Assis, the Portuguese of 16th-century poet Luís de Camões, the Portuguese spoken by millions of Brazilians today, or the Portuguese of 13th-century troubadours. Pinging Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton in case he has something to add.


RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with query[edit]

Why does deprecated identifiers still show up? It completely defeats the purpose Trade (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade Actually the purpose of your selected syntax IS to show all statements, not just the true ones. If you want to keep this syntax and filter out only non-deprecated statements, you'll have to modify the query: Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

throughput (P2957)[edit]

I am looking for a property to indicate the storage capacity of buildings such as silos or granary. This case (Silo of Allo (Q99790705) has the throughput but it is limited and gives an error. Is there any other property more suitable? Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

volume as quantity (P2234) but it looks like it should only be used with units of volume, not units of mass. Peter James (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate for throughput (P2957) to allow tons to be entered? One of its aliases is capacity and in Spanish load capacity, which are measured in kilos or tons. For example, the wheat storage capacity of a building such as a silo or granary. All the best. CC: @Epìdosis: @Multichill: @Madamebiblio: --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abián: wrote to me to tell me the problem that the use of tons can bring. It is not a very reliable measure, therefore we should not use it, so thank you all. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated {{List of properties/Row}} for clear syntax and clear result when using a property with a qualifier.The previous syntax still for backward compatibly . This is an example of new syntax:

{{List of properties/Header}}
{{List of properties/Row
 | id                = 22
 | qualifier = 143
 | example-subject   = Q9682
 | example-object    = Q280856
 | example-predicate = Q328
{{List of properties/Footer}}
Title ID Data type Description Examples Inverse
father with qualifier imported from Wikimedia projectP22Itemfather: male parent of the subject. For stepfather, use "stepparent" (P3448)Elizabeth II <father> George VI
<imported from Wikimedia project> English Wikipedia
The previous
{{List of properties/Header}}
{{List of properties/Row
 | id                = 143
 | contextualized-qualifier = true
 | description       = source of this claim's value
 | example-subject   = Q9682
 | example-property  = P22
 | example-object    = Q280856
 | example-predicate = Q328
{{List of properties/Footer}}
Title ID Data type Description Examples Inverse
father with qualifier imported from Wikimedia projectP143ItemWikimedia Foundation project: source of this claim's valueElizabeth II <father> George VI
<imported from Wikimedia project> English Wikipedia

حبيشان (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know why Hyneria lindae (Q132969) (currently titled Hyneria lindae) has sitelinks to many articles titled Hyneria? Kk.urban (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was considered a monotypic genus until last year; the corresponding Wikidata items just haven't been updated to account for this. Taxa aren't exactly a high traffic part of the site, it's mostly bots. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #623[edit]

April 2024 Wikidata content pie chart[edit]

April 2024 Wikidata statistics

We have an updated pie 🥧 chart for Wikidata:Statistics! Wow the Wikidata:WikiCite slice sure is large and tasty.

BTW - there is not particular news published for sharing but developers at the Wikimedia Foundation and WikiCite contributors are discussing a split of the Wikidata Query Service Graph. See Wikidata_talk:WikiCite#WikiCite_in_continued_limbo for background, and post to the WikiCite talk page if you want to join discussions and get updates.

Thanks user:VIGNERON for generating this. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one name item per name?[edit]

Replies to my question here are very welcome: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Names#Which_items_should_be_added_as_P735? D3rT!m (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

Hello everyone, how do I create a request to rename/move a lexeme? Due to the renaming of a company, I would like to request that Plastic Omnium (Q3391735) be renamed to "OPmobility". See the French WP for sources. Thanks for your answers. --Thingol (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an item rather than a lexeme. A move isn't necessary. You just add a new alias with the alternative name. If other editors don't object, you can swap the alias with the main label, but you must keep both. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks for the quick reply. --Thingol (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something has gone wrong with the authors here...[edit]

2018 American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Annual Meeting & Exhibition (Q57498725) duplicate entries, duplicate "object named as"... Magnus Manske (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem at source that was imported in the original edit. If you check the PubMed link, you will see the same author names repeated multiple times. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Daimús es el nombre oficial de la población, con lo cual solicito que se sustituya el uso de 'Daimuz' por el oficial, tanto en el pueblo como en la playa. Daimús y Playa de Daimús. Robert Miñana (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth after father's death[edit]

We need to change the calculation so that we do not get the error message unless the difference between death and birth is more than 9 months, perhaps 10. See George Francis Valentine Scott Douglas (Q75268023) RAN (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People have used "exception to constraint" to get rid of these messages, but this doesn't scale. The next step people tend to use is adding "separator" but "object has role" is too ambiguous for this purpose, we would need a qualifier that is more or less single-purpose. Got any ideas? Make a new one maybe? Infrastruktur (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed "separator" only works for the single value constraint. :-( But it does seem like a good way to mark claims that are manually checked. @Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Something similar for contemporary constraint might be a good idea. At least it's a solution that doesn't have complexity issues. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrastruktur: I don’t understand what you’re trying to do. What does this have to do with a “separator”? What are the date of birth / date being separated from? Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about "separator" that was my mistake. I was interested in hearing if you thought it would be feasible to add a way to manually mark claims such as child (P40) with a qualifier basically telling the constraint checker that this claim have been manually checked so don't show an error message here. Basically doing what "exception to constraint" does except the exception info is moved to the claims themselves so it should be more scalable I guess. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t mind adding that, I think… should be relatively simple to implement in WBQC, at least. It’s not an ideal solution, but it’s not like we have any much better solutions lined up either (“constraint exceptions don’t scale” has been a known issue for a while, and the last proposal I dimly recall, which I think would’ve encoded exception lists as additional items, was probably worse). My main concern would be that people would object to these qualifiers, but maybe I’m being too paranoid there ^^ Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about how to encode the exception. If we use a single new qualifier "constraints manually checked" that would remove warnings for any and all constraints, which might be ok. Trying to encode information about individual exceptions in the predicate position strikes me as a bad idea, but they could be encoded in the object position if there was a URI prefix reserved for this purpose. The "wdno:" prefix encodes which property it pertains to, so likewise an "wdnoexception:" prefix could encode which property and exception it pertained to e.g. "?statement_node pq:P99999 ("constraint manually checked") wdnoexception:P40-Q25796498". Edit: Or maybe something like "?statement_node wdnoexception:P40 ("constraint manually checked") wd:Q25796498" would be better after all? It would add new things to the data model so it's not something that can be rushed. Edit 2: Or since we know which property from the claim itself, we could do without any new URI prefix at all which is actually way better, e.g. "?statement_node pq:P99999 ("constraint manually checked") wd:Q25796498". Infrastruktur (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we can do a search for all the children born within 10 months of the father's death and mark them all object_has_role=born after father's death (Q105083598) and rewrite the rule for the error message so that it is not triggered when object_has_role=born after father's death (Q105083598). I am not familiar with how the error message rules are coded to make the changes myself. Do we have an error message when a child is born after the mother's death, which would indicate that the child belongs to a different spouse of the husband? --RAN (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect a general implementation of such a check (not limited to humans) would have a high complexity cost. It also trades false positives for false negatives. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation errors[edit]

It looks like a dozen entries from one source have conflation and typographical errors, can someone look at Karel Sicha (Q95151151) and Josef Gerschon (Q61912800) and Václav Mach (Q95138276), which looks like a conflation, while I take care of the typographical errors. RAN (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) If you find other conflations, please report them to me. These were manually paired based on suggestions provided by the reconciliation service, but it seems that I mis-clicked in a few out of the 1800 entries. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Written work[edit]

Peek at Rem Cashow (1768-1816) biography (Q125417076) where instance_of=genealogical biography (Q125417108) is not being recognized as a written_work, how can I get rid of the error massages? RAN (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Q125417108 BrokenSegue (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For written works like that, shouldn't instance of (P31)written work (Q47461344) plus genre (P136)genealogical biography (Q125417108) be used? I think genres aren't usually used as values for P31 statements. -- 17:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that is more appropriate BrokenSegue (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

questions go here?[edit]

Is this the right place to ask questions? My apologies if not. I would like to ask these questions about best practices and community etiquette:

This newly created record - - has at least two problems: the pseudonym and the name. Because the name is wrong, I'm inclined to make a duplicate entry for the person and merge them. Would it be better to attempt to move Q125408315 so I can correct the name?

The pseudonym is incorrect; he did not use that pseudonym. But I know where the misinformation came from; the contributor mistook a generic ironic phrase and applied it specifically. Should I simply delete the bad data? Delete it and leave a note on the discussion for the entity? Delete it and leave a note for the individual contributor of that info? What is the proper way to correct the data? Jerimee (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the right place to ask questions. To make an internal link to an item, you can write it like {{Q|125408315}} which produces Henry Fournier (Q125408315). Next, there is no point creating a new entry and then merging it; you may as well edit the existing item. The pseudonym is supported by a reference that seems to be guessing the pseudonym; I'd deprecate the statement (see Help:Deprecation). What change are you wanting to make to the name? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! That reference is a single line of text on a blog that reads "nothing is known about him, he might have well as signed his name blotch." It is an easy enough mistake to make; it is like saying "he might as well have signed his name X" or "he might as well have signed his name John Doe."
His name is Henry, not Henri, despite his being French. Source 1: Source 2: Alt Img for Source 1: So Henry Fournier (Q125408315) needs to be moved to label "Henry Fournier."
The pseudonym issue is separate from the label issue. And thanks for letting me know it is better to simply move, than to create new and then merge. Jerimee (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got confused, and thought for some reason labels could not be edited without doing a move. My apologies. I think I have my answers now. :) Jerimee (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a filter error with reference URL[edit]

"Could not save due to an error. The save has failed. The text you wanted to publish was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a forbidden external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter:"

Not sure why that website would be blocked on Wikidata: American magazine Piecesofuk (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I see this kind of error. I had a similar error, if only I had read project chat before posting I would not need to post my issue. Anyway I thought this was so unique of a problem that only I had it. Now I see that you also had an issue with entering references. I guess someone is working hard right now to fix it...I'll actually log out, then I'll log in again in a few hours...perhaps its fixed by then...who knows. Thanks for reporting! TooFewUsernames (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that admins have deemed links to that website mostly unwanted. So even if the site itself is ok, it might feature often as a reference in promotional spam whilst not being useful for establishing notability. But that's speculation of course.
I have no idea if admins are exempt from the blacklist, but bots are, so I guess. What claim were you trying to add? I'll try adding it for you. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has it as "No Consensus" in so it shouldn't be blacklisted here. Anything listed at should be allowed as a valid reference on Wikidata Piecesofuk (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that this is an invalid argument. Wikidata is not English Wikipedia (as the majority of English Wikipedians are eager to point out whenever there is an opportunity to work with Wikidata). The issues that Wikidata faces are not the same as English Wikipedia. An argument that something is okay "here" because English Wikipedia says it is okay "there" holds little weight.
On the other hand, if you would like to bring up similar points to those discussed at Wikipedia, you may gain a separate consensus here that goes the same way. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have I misunderstood the purpose of Wikidata? ( Shouldn't it store all the structured data within all Wikipedias including references? Piecesofuk (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two key principles of the Wikimedia movement are that (with the exception of breaches of law) decisions are made by consensus and that a consensus on one project can't dictate how another project operates. Wikidata can't dictate how things operate on English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia can't dictate how things operate on Wikidata. You have to reach a separate consensus in both projects.
I have no knowledge of this blocked source other than the Wikipedia article you linked. My issue is solely that you can't point us to a consensus on another project and expect changes to be implemented without discussion. The consensus must be formed here too. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated below the change was implemented here without discussion. Piecesofuk (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has been blacklisted locally since January 2021 by @Lymantria for long term abuse, see here. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long term abuse? It's a legitimate magazine published since 1977. Can it be removed from the blacklist? Piecesofuk (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good argument, but let's hear from Lymantria first. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a legitimate magazine, it's been the base to a lot of spam as well. The latter has been the reason for blacklisting it. Feel free to debate that decision here, I will be out of office from tomorrow onwards for a few weeks. If it is decided that this blacklisting is to be removed, I will accept so. --Lymantria (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link to the discussion which alleged that the magazine was used as a base for spam, I can't find any evidence of that.
Wikidata editors should be able to copy any and all references that are stored in Wikipedia into Wikidata. Isn't that what Wikidata is for, to store all the structureed data in Wikipedia? Piecesofuk (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been such a discussion as far as I remember, which is not uncommon @Wikidata. Your statement on what Wikidata editors should be able to, may be a bit too general. --Lymantria (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my understanding of "Instead of supporting the structure and common elements of a web page, Wikidata provides structure for all the information stored in Wikipedia, and on the other Wikimedia projects. " Piecesofuk (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WD:UCS territory. Wikidata does not exist in a vacuum, it needs to consider the needs of the wiki-sphere, but ultimately local concerns take precedence. If you've seen how much promotional spam there is, I think you just might change your mind. What's even worse is when people decide to abuse the appeal system even if they have no case at all, wasting the time of others. Some admins (and since I can only speak for one that kind of narrows it down) have even stopped deleting promotional items because of this, instead focusing on other types of deletions. If this does not sound sustainable, it is because it is not. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if someone would provide a single example of spam abuse from Piecesofuk (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick look at Entrepreneur's marketing materials on their "Entrepreneur Partner Studio", it appears that sponsored content and paid placement contributor networks are some part of their business model. Contributor network content being larger on their international franchises.
Whether it's to a level that is so pervasive that it overwhelms the value of their reported editorial content is beyond me. I contrast them with Insider/BusinessInsider who is not on the blocklist, but has a well known and significant level of sponsored content/paid placement contributor networks. --William Graham (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lexeme reference failure[edit]

Have been trying to add this reference URL as a source/reference for ages but it fails every time:γουδί

I am using Lexeme:L944697 as a template for my contribution to Lexeme:L1319516 which I recently created.

On Lexeme:L944697 the reference URL isτραγούδι but I can't add the url forγουδί, fails every time.

Do I need to be more trusted in Wikidata for me to add references or is the problem that its in Greek? I also tried adding the URL and it also failed(no Greek characters visible)

Also why isn't {{L:944697}} not working? It does for Q items, so if anyone got the time to fix it, please help. TooFewUsernames (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

main_subject/major_subject versus secondary_subject/minor_subject in Wikidata entries[edit]

How can we provide secondary_subject search terms in a Wikidata entry for an obituary? I may be looking through Wikidata for an obituary of someone associated with a particular Olympics or associated with a particular company, but it appears main_subject can only be used for the name of the deceased person. Is there any way to include search terms other than the deceased person's name? For instance at Commons in structured_data you include all search terms and mark the deceased person's name as "prominent" and leave the other search terms unmarked. How would we do this here at Wikidata? Can I include all useful search terms and mark the deceased person's name with "preferred rank" and leave the other search terms as "normal rank"? I can understand not including every name in the index at an entry for a book, but an obituary may only have 5 or 6 secondary_subject search terms. What is the best way to include useful search terms without violating the rigid definition of main_subject? RAN (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe main subject (P921) has a rigid definition at all - see for example the (long) discussion on Wikidata:Property proposal/subject facet. I believe it can and should be used for any sort of useful keyword on an item for a work. Did somebody revert you for using main subject (P921) for another term on an obituary? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "this entry," were you intending to link to a specific item? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! I went back and added it, sorry for the confusion, I went to cut and paste it in as David Emanuel Wahlberg (1882-1949) obituary (Q105337575), but it looks like I just cut and pasted an empty space. I do not think that the number of search terms that I had added were unreasonable. The text is in Swedish so having the links to Wikidata entries for the people/places/things mentioned are very useful. As in most news articles abbreviations are used to save space, and linking to the actual term is very useful. For USA news articles, I know what NY and NJ mean but I cannot expect someone from another country to know what they mean. --RAN (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point but these types of discussions are never resolved unless we allow the other party to provide their perspective. @Quesotiotyo: would you like to comment here as the one who reverted the edit? Would you be willing to let the information be restored either under main subject (P921) or another property? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont read Swedish but it sound that any decent obituary if the man would cover his Alma mater and his sporting prowess, so adding the terms is superfluous. If I wanted obituaries of 1912 olympians I'd ask for the people, and then obituaries, and not go through main_subject, and get a thin set of results Vicarage (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every obituary has an entry for the decedent. There is a current project to load all the obituaries from the New York Times. And we should have a standard rule, not ad hoc deletion. We also should not restrict how someone may search for an obituary they are looking for, because that is not the way any other individual would search for it. I prefer to use Google to search through Wikidata, and the more relevant search terms, the more precise a Google search becomes. As I said before, we do not need to include every term listed in an index if we have an entry for a book. --RAN (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you accept an obituary without a decedent? If the obituary is worth recording it should be able to populate a person entry. I think this is a clear case of using WDs structure to remove duplicate information. Vicarage (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because an obituary comes from "serious and publicly available" resource. An entry for the decedent, that does not have a Wikidata entry can have one created at any time. The same argument could be used to not host scientific articles because we do not have an entry for the author, yet we have over 10,000 scientific articles with no link to an author or a topic. We host scientific articles because they are a "serious and publicly available" resource. --RAN (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have it slightly wrong. Wikidata:Notability allows for entities described by serious and publicly available references. The vast majority of articles that we have are not being used as a reference source.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be clear what property (educated at, affiliation, qualifier on degree) you would find an "alma mater" under in Wikidata - if it was even listed on the person's item? I don't see how adding it to the obituary item hurts anything here - it's redundant only in a very indirect sense. But maybe @Quesotiotyo: can clarify. If it was on a "keyword" property instead of "main subject" would it be acceptable, or also "redundant" and to be deleted? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, include this information using an appropriate property. I wasn't suggesting that any of it was redundant, just that it in no way fit the description of P921 ("primary topic of a work").
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quesotiotyo: despite the description text, main subject (P921) also has aliases that indicate it is (and has been widely) used for "non-primary" topics. Are you familiar with previous discussion regarding alternate property proposals for non-primary topics (such as Wikidata:Property proposal/subject facet)? Would you strongly support such an alternative? We don't seem to have had a consensus on this up to now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, I would view those aliases and uses that you refer to as point-blank wrong since they do not fit the definition of this property, and in my opinion they should be removed without question. If any users really want this information to persist, it should be up to them to request a property specifically for such a purpose (and then add the statements in the correct manner). As you have noted, this has been attempted several times before and there has never been clear support to have one. I must say that I find that very telling. I would be in favor of having such an alternative though if it means a reduction in the number of P915 misuses and the time needed to fix them (and transferring the statements to a new property using something like the moveClaim gadget would be an ideal way of doing so).
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reversing the deletion, I am looking at instance_of=obituary and over 100 entries have more than one main_subject. We should not have ad hoc changes, the rule should apply to all Wikidata entries. If a hard rule is made that there can only be one main_subject, we can delete all others. Or if we create secondary_subject, they can be migrated there. As a compromise I have up-ranked the name of the decedent, which appears to be the only way to add in search terms unless we create secondary_subject. --RAN (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Note The above user created many of those 100+ obituary items and is the reason that they have multiple main subjects. --Quesotiotyo (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query Count in Table[edit]


Kindly requesting, How to add an auto-updating 'count' (number of items) in a table on a project page? Wallacegromit1 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add the following query value into a table;

SELECT (COUNT(*) AS ?count)


?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .

?item wdt:P27 wd:Q408 .

?item wdt:P106 wd:Q60461966 .

Try it!
@ArthurPSmith Thanks for the suggestion, but it does not seem to work.
There must be an easier way to just get the count? Wallacegromit1 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property documentation / Current uses[edit]

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, and I'll just repeat: the little box on the properties' talk page that summarizes the usage of the property in a table hasn't been working for a while, I think. Maybe this is it: Module:Property_documentation. Pallor (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki article queries[edit]

Is there a way to generate a list of Wikidata items where the article on one Wikipedia is in a particular category and the article on another Wikipedia is in another particular category? Kk.urban (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sotilis (Q17101800) is getting some vandalism (being labelled a 'scam professional'). Can an admin protect the page? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the text box at the top of the page. Requests for page protection should be made at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Are there more than just the two new accounts that have vandalised the page today? If not, it may be better to just report the two accounts for vandalism and request protection only if further vandalism occurs. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add corresponding depicts (P180) statements if depicts Iconclass notation (P1257) is present[edit]

There is a rather big number of depicts Iconclass notation (P1257) statements (~47k) on items with no depicts (P180) statement, cf.:

SELECT ?obj ?objLabel ?IC ?motiv ?motivLabel Where {
  ?obj wdt:P1257 ?IC .
  MINUS { ?obj wdt:P180 ?x . }
  ?motiv wdt:P1256 ?IC .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
Try it!

I think it might be useful to additionally convert the depicts-statement that is implicit in depicts Iconclass notation (P1257) into an explicit depicts (P180) which is definitely easier to work with. Do you see any problems here?

21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Awinkler3 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian labels[edit]

Currently, there are two types of Russian labels for persons. Some labels start with the surname separated from the rest of the name with a comma, while other labels keep the usual order starting with the first name. Is there a consensus on what should be used as label? D3rT!m (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit Wikidata[edit]

Hello! I'm a project manager for the Albanian Wikipedia and we were trying to do an activity dedicated to Wikidata today but we quickly noticed that very few of the involved members had the "Edit" button. Can someone tell me what is going on? I assume there should be a kind of threshold that maybe they have yet to reach but I have limited knowledge in that direction in regard to Wikidata. Any information would be appreciated. Thank you! - Vyolltsa (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were the people involved using a mixture of devices? The Wikidata interface on mobile devices is fairly limited. Alternatively, can you give an example of a page where the problem occurred? It may be that the page has been semi-protected due to vandalism by users that aren't logged in (semi-protection also blocks newly registered users. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]