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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata:PC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit

deidetected.com, a self-published source potentially used for harassment

[edit]

This website launched and run by the creator of the "Sweet Baby Inc detected" Steam curator would fall under the definition of a self-published source on Wikipedia. The Steam curator has been linked to the harassment campaign against Sweet Baby Inc. by reputable sources like PC Gamer, The Verge, and multiple others.

Wikidata has a page for the website, with the website linked via the described at URL property, by User:Kirilloparma on more than one if not every occasion. Even within the scope of that source, it is done in a very targeted way in that the website seems to be added to the Wikidata pages only when the game is recommended against at deidetected.com (e.g. The First Descendant, Abathor, Valfaris: Mecha Therion recommended as "DEI FREE" by deidetected do not have the property set). Based on that, its goal of harassment or POV pushing appears to be evident.

Does Wikidata have any guidelines that would explicitly allow or disallow this behavior or the coverage of deidetected.com at all? Daisy Blue (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy on WD for blacklisting websites for other than malicious cases such as spam or malware Trade (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now from having read the property description for described at URL on its talk page, which explains that it's for "reliable external resources", I'm convinced the website has no place on Wikidata, as it's not a reliable source (at least not per the guidelines of Wikipedia (WP:RSSELF)). What is the best place to initiate its removal without having to start a potential edit war? A bot would also do a more efficient job at removing it from all the pages. Daisy Blue (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have more luck if you stopped bringing up Wikipedia guidelines and used the Wikidata ones instead Trade (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata itself cites the Wikipedia guidelines on self-published sources (and on original research). Daisy Blue (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia policy is im many cases useful to decide what should be done in Wikidata (e.g. which sources are reliable), but should never be considered normative and have no more authoritativeness than policies in any other project. GZWDer (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be used to mass undo 18 of the edits that introduced the links, but it's not progressing for me when trying. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a low-quality, private website that doesn't seem to add anything of value to our items. There are countless websites out there, but we generally don't add every single site via described at URL (P973) just for simply existing. IIRC, there were various cases in the past where users added unreliable websites to lots of items, that were then considered spam and deleted accordingly. And if the site's primary purpose is indeed purely malicious and causing harassment, there's really no point in keeping it. Best to simply put it on the spam blacklist and keep the whole culture war nonsense out of serious projects like Wikidata. Additionally, DEIDetected (Q126365310) currently has zero sources indicating a clear lack of notability. --2A02:810B:5C0:1F84:45A2:7410:158A:615B 13:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already nominated that and Sweet Baby Inc detected for deletion citing the same reason, though specifically for the curator, one could stretch point 2 of Wikidata:Notability to argue against it, but I'm not sure what value it would bring to the project apart from enabling harassment and its use to justify any other related additions. Daisy Blue (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just add this website to the spam blacklist, no one will be able to add links to this website on Wikimedia projects anymore. Midleading (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the proper venue for proposing that? Also, seeing how you have a bot, could you suggest a quick way to mass remove the remaining instances from Wikidata? I've already undone a number by hand but it's not the greatest experience. Having the knowledge may also help in the future. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the home page of Meta-Wiki, click Spam blacklist, and follow instructions there.
To clean up links to this website, I recommend External links search. A WDQS search is likely to time out. I also recommend reviewing each case manually, sometimes the item should be nominated for deletion, but tools can't do that. Midleading (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll remove the rest by hand then. As for the Wikimedia spam blacklist, it says that "Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist". I'm not sure if there have been any attempts to cite deidetected on Wikipedia or elsewhere. We can search for the live references (there are none) but not through the potential reverted edits, I don't think. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may request this website be banned on Wikipedia first, then you may find some users who agree with you. Midleading (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Wikipedia has the same policy in that if it hasn't been abused (and I wouldn't know if it has been specifically on Wikipedia), then there is no reason to block it. On Wikidata, as it stands now, the additions come from one user, Kirilloparma, who pushed back on my removals here but hasn't reverted. Unless it becomes a sustained effort by multiple users, it will come down to whether Kirilloparma concedes that described at URL is for reliable sources and the website is not a reliable source. Daisy Blue (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason Kirilloparma keeps making points on the subject on the Requests for deletions page rather than here (despite having been informed), now arguing that the short property description takes precedence over the property documentation on the talk page, which is dismissed as "outdated". Daisy Blue (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata has items for many websites even if those websites are worthy of criticism. Knowing that "Sweet Baby Inc detected" is linked to "DeiDetected" is useful information even if both of those sources would be completely unreliable.
I don't see any use of links to deidetected.com within Wikidata where it's used for the purpose of harassement which would justify putting it on a blacklist. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of that website is to incite harassment, so intentionally linking to it within Wkkidata directly contributes to that problem. --2A02:810B:5C0:1F84:2836:F2FD:EE77:CF71 19:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Quite frankly, your comment is insensitive and I agree with the IP. Note that the OP did say that the only edits adding them have been to "recommended against" games' items, so your point does not stand I'm afraid. Other than information on the sites themselves, we really should not provide "described at" claims linking them to people. Such is arguably a gross violation of Wikidata:Living people.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of Wikidata:Living people do you believe is violated here and by which edits?
Instead of focusing on what the OP said, why don't you look yourself to get an impression of what we talk about?
The OP asked for the item to be deleted. Currently DEIDetected (Q126365310) does link to Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722). The described at URL (P973) claims on Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722) seem to me like the go to relatively neutral sources like Wired saying things like "Although early efforts began on sites like notorious harassment hub Kiwi Farms last year, much of the misinformation about Sweet Baby has coalesced around Sweet Baby Inc Detected, a Steam curation group that bills itself as “a tracker for games involved with” the company." ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose the existence of these items and the existing claims you quoted. It is when these claims are added to particular games' items that it begins to create problems for the game's developers by inviting harassment targeted around their alleged ties to Sweet Baby and other organizations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If deidetected would dox individual employees, that would be a privacy violation. Saying that a particular company was consulting another company for developing a product is not a violation of the privacy of individual people. Boycott of commercial products like games based on political justifications, is not something that the living people policy is intended to prevent. Using the word "harrassement" for it, does not mean it's the same as actions against individuals.
That said, we do have discussions over whether to add properties for external sources to require consensus to sources to all entries of a website and using described at URL (P973) as a workaround because there's no property for an individual website is generally a bad idea. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma: Please do not reintroduce any of these links in the future. Doing so is a violation of Wikidata:Living people on the grounds of privacy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That policy is about living people, not companies. As far as i can tell none of the entries even names any living persons in the first place Trade (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy touches on groups as well, with emphasis on small groups. Sweet Baby Inc. consists of only 16 people. Some of the targeted games were made by as many or fewer (e.g. Sable, Neo Cab). Moreover, the website absolutely names living individuals, as exemplified by its page on Life is Strange: Double Exposure. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly block-listed the domain on Wikidata. In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation DEI principles, linking a low-quality harassment site in a way that causes LP violations is not appropriate. Exceptions, such as for items on articles covering the site, can be handled using edit requests. I request that the blacklisting stand unless an explicit consensus rises against it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since my username keeps appearing in this thread and I'm being accused of things, I think I'll comment in detail and answer questions early/mid next week. There's a lot to talk about, especially since the user who started this thread, while I was away, is deleting everything related to this video game database (recent disruptive edits where the user deleted quite valid sources [1], [2], [3], [4]), which would be useful for structured data. For instance database provides information about the developers and publishers for a particular game and this fact is completely omitted here, anyway I will comment on everything here soon. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are already aware of the reasoning, but for those unaware, see the talk on Requests for deletions as well as my argumentation on the talk page for DEIDetected that came with those edits. It is unfortunate that edit summaries aren't a thing on here. Daisy Blue (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kirilloparma if we see a database as a good source for a category of items, the usual process we use at Wikidata is to make a property proposal for an external ID to the given website. That way a consensus can be found, whether we want to use a given database in this way.
    Process-wise this has the advantage that consenus is found about what sources we want to use in this way. Practically, listing all the database in the Identifiers section as benefits as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are spiling (Q17126694) and bank revetment (Q2282104) about the same subject?

[edit]

Can spiling (Q17126694) and bank revetment (Q2282104) be merged? Are they about the same subject? I am a non-native English speaker and Google Translate doesn't help. If they cannot be merged: what are the differences? JopkeB (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give ChatGPT or Claude the text of the Wikipedia articles and ask it whether the topic is the same or there are differences. ChatGPT knows all the relevant languages while we don't. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ChristianKl for the suggestion (very good one, I'll use it more often when I have trouble to find the English equivalent for a Dutch word). Outcome: no they are not the same.
  • "Spiling" in English generally refers to the process of creating curves or patterns in shipbuilding or woodworking. It’s a technique used to transfer curves or shapes onto materials like wood. [My comment: then the description in Wikidata differs from the generally meaning in English according to ChatGPT.]
  • "Beschoeiing" in Dutch, however, refers to bank protection or revetment — a method used to reinforce and protect the edges of waterways, ditches, or canals, typically with wood, concrete, or metal to prevent erosion. [My comment: That seems correct to me. So I should use revetment (Q3742014).]
JopkeB (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't just use the label when asking ChatGPT. spiling (Q17126694) is not about shipbuilding or woodworking. It's better to use the start of the Wikipedia articles so that ChatGPT has the context. ChatGPT says:
The main difference between spiling and beschoeiing lies in their materials, purposes, and methods, though both are used for protecting riverbanks or shores.
Spiling:
Material: Primarily uses willow rods and posts that are woven together. The willow rods are typically live and root into the soil, promoting natural stabilization.
Purpose: A technique to prevent erosion of river and stream banks through natural and sustainable means, allowing the willow to grow and reinforce the bank over time.
Method: Living willow posts are driven into the bank and woven with rods. Additional measures, like stones or wooden planks, may be used to prevent undercutting. This is considered a form of soft engineering.
Context: Popular in the UK, this method encourages growth and is more environmentally friendly, used especially in temperate regions. It works best during the dormant winter season.
Beschoeiing:
Material: Can be made from wood, concrete, recycled plastic, or steel. Historically, hardwood (often tropical) has been used, though there is opposition to this due to environmental concerns. Newer materials like recycled plastic or fiberglass-reinforced concrete are becoming more common.
Purpose: A structural solution to protect shores, riverbanks, or construction sites from erosion, wave forces, or other threats to stability. It is used in both natural settings (like riverbanks) and construction settings (such as dry excavations).
Method: Posts (wood or steel) are driven into the ground, with sheets or planks (plastic, concrete, or wood) fixed between them. In deeper canals or construction zones, this might take the form of retaining walls.
Context: Used in civil engineering and construction sectors, beschoeiing is a more industrial or engineered approach compared to spiling and can involve more rigid materials to handle deeper or higher walls.
In summary, spiling is a more ecological and flexible method often used in natural environments, while beschoeiing is a more engineered solution that uses industrial materials for erosion control or construction support. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ChristianKl: for your answer. Can the conclusion also be that Spiling is a subclass of Beschoeiing/bank revetment? JopkeB (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked ChatGPT, and it would say yes, it's a subclass. In a case like this, where you first give ChatGPT the relevant information (through the text from the Wikipedia articles) it's a question that you can ask ChatGPT directly. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions:

  1. No, they cannot be merged.
  2. spiling (Q17126694) is a subclass of bank revetment (Q2282104).

I'll make the canges in Wikidata (as well as in Commons). --JopkeB (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes in Wikidata were already be ✓ Done by ChristianKl, thanks! JopkeB (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best property for circumstances surrounding a work of art entering a collection?

[edit]

Hi everyone! I'm working on updating artworks in the Rijksmuseum and the museum website has a datapoint that specifies how a painting/etc entered their collection - bequest, donor, on loan from, acquisition from, etc. What would be the best way to add this data? I was thinking about adding a qualifier to the collection property, but couldn't find one that matches. The only acquisition-related one is for sports teams. AniaGrzybowska (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is beforehand owned by (P11811), proposed in combination with significant event (P793) or donated by (P1028), but both are only about ownership, which does not work for loaned works. NGOgo (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's super useful actually! I'll at least be able to do the ones who were purchased/donated. I'll do the on loan ones later once we maybe figure it out. Thank you! AniaGrzybowska (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, also see
M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually think of using has cause (P828) (or a subproperty) as a qualifier. William Graham (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing - thank you both. I'll make sure to use all of the relevant properties. Will explore the projects as well!. AniaGrzybowska (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AniaGrzybowska: good to have some help with the Rijksmuseum! It's one of the first museums I imported as part sum of all paintings and I still update it every once in a while. I only do the paintings. I could do everything, but the prints alone are over a million works. Paintings generally have a "SK-A/C-<integer>" inventory number. SK stands for "SchilderKunst", A for owned works (example) and C for the loans (example). If a painting is first loans and later donated, it gets a new inventory number (should have preferred rank). I keep lists of missing inventory numbers: SK-A missing (newest is SK-A-5126) & SK-C missing (newest is SK-C-1849).
I guess the first step for provenance is adding when it entered the collection. My bot is doing the easy cases, need a human hand for the harder cases. Could you help with that?
I see that the API provides the credit line. I could make an extract of that so we can find common cases. Would that be useful?
As for how to exactly model provenance, I don't think the dust has settled on that yet, Wikidata:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Item_structure#Object_history_or_provenance is the best starting point. Multichill (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing - thank you for your help! I'll have a look at the list of the harder cases and see what info I have! I'll double check how it's formatted, because for the paintings I've been looking at, it mainly states who helped with the bequest, who facilitated the donation, etc. Will have a look what you have this week! This is exciting :) AniaGrzybowska (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AniaGrzybowska: Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/Rijksmuseum/provenance. I have to re-run it because part is missing. Multichill (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about notability criteria in Wikidata:Notability

[edit]

Per Wikidata:Notability an item is notable if meets at least one of the three notability criteria. I'm not going to cover the whole thing here, but according to point two an item is notable if "it refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." Whereas point three says an item is notable if "it fulfills a structural need."

I understand the spirit behind both of those criteria but There seems to be issues when people create unreferenced items for things simply because said items fulfill a structural purpose. To give an example, there's upwards of a thousand items for "fictional universes" that seem to be notable simply because they fulfill a structural need for fictional universe (Q559618). Even though the items aren't referenced to anything what-so-ever. So my question is, can an item meet the notability guidelines simply because it meets a structural need even if it isn't an instance of a clearly identifiable concept described using serious and publicly available references? Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Wikidata "a thousand items" is a relatively insignificant amount of items.
In this case, the items we have for fictional universe (Q559618) generally exist because there are entities in that fictional universe that are notable. If you take for example the fictional planet Tschai (Q929640) itself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If entities in a universe are notable and can be described with sources, that generally means that there are also sources that describe the universe itself.
Note, that we don't have a "fictional universe for this book" property. As a result just because a book is notable, the fictional universe in which that book is set isn't automatically notable under (2). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic starter forgot to mention Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_universes#Notability_criteria_for_fictional_universes. Multichill (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a "fictional universe for this book" property: takes place in fictional universe (P1434). A fictional entity would only produce a structural need for an item representing the universe it appears in if it was required for a fictional entity to have a from narrative universe (P1080) statement. This is (currently) not the case: it is completely ok for a character or entity not to have a from narrative universe (P1080) statement. We have present in work (P1441) to link to the work and this is in most cases sufficient. There is currently the question if two works set in the same universe that are not part of a bigger work (e.g. being from the same series) produce a structural need for a fictional universe. Multichill already provided a link to the discussion. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with fictional universes is one example of many. It's not the sole or only reason I asked the question though and I would like an answer regardless of the property being discussed somewhere else. Otherwise it just seems like deflecting from the overall question. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: I didn't forget the mention the conversation. It's a more general question outside of fictional universes. that was just one example of many. Thanks for derailing this by making it about that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
short answer from me too. Yes. --Zache (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: I'm not really sure I follow you. Are you saying it doesn't matter if Wikidata:Notability is met for items having to do with fictional universes or if they aren't sourced to anything because the overall number of them is relatively low? Aside from that I'm not really sure what your point is about the fictional universes generally existing. To give another example besides fictional universes, people exist. But it doesn't mean every single person on the planet is inherently notable or worthy of having a Wikidata correct? I assume an item for any given person would still need to sourced to something instead of just providing a structural need for human (Q5) or some other item. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "exist" in the context of items existing in Wikidata. I have not made any claims about how fictional universe might exist or not exist, and that's also not a question that matters given that exist is not a word used in our notability criteria.
We have items in Wikidata because it's useful for us to have them. In the case of items for fictional universes, that usefulness is about being able to make statements that link items about different entities in a fictional universe together to a common universe. The "structural need" criterium is about allowing us to have items for a purpose like that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. That's how it meant it to. I could really care less if fictional universes exist as a concept. That's not what the conversation is about. But "existence" does matter to something like CSI universe (Q110918424). As it's obviously pointless to have an item for a "CSI universe" if said universe isn't a thing to begin with. I don't think the part about it being useful is really relevant if there's "CSI universe" to begin with either. From what I can tell nothing in Wikidata:Notability indicates that we can create items for whatever made up thing we want to as long as it serves a "structural need."
With "fictional universes" specifically there's already items for franchises and the like anyway. So I really don't see the point there. Q110918424 is literally just a duplicate of Q264198, which is actually sourced. But it seems like your totally cool with it simply because the items serves a structural need for items related to fictional universes on here more generally. Apparently even regardless of the lack of sourcing and again, the fact that it just duplicates an existing item. Weird opinion if I'm being honest, but alright. So it doesn't matter if an item is sourced to anything, actually exists as a concept, and/or duplicates exiting items. It's totally cool "because structural need." Got it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 we and Wikpedia as well have items/articles about various gods irrelevant of the gods really existing in the real world. Existance in the real world is not necessary for notability in either Wikidata or Wikipedia.
A fictional universe is a fictional entity while a "media franchise" isn't a fictional entity. from narrative universe (P1080) does not take "media franchise" as a valid value. If you think that having a data model centered around narrative universes isn't a good idea, the conclusion would be to propose the deletion of from narrative universe (P1080) / takes place in fictional universe (P1434) / fictional universe described in (P1445) and see to have the relevant properties that handle "media franchise" (I'm unsure whether we currently have all the functions or you would need one).
Maybe, those properties could also be changed to take "media franchise". That's an issue of the data model and focusing on individual items, is not the right place to focus if you want the data model changed. Consistency of a data-model is valuable for Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Sure, but you know as well as I do that gods are a false equivalency because there's actually sources out there discussing them as such. Which isn't the case with most of these fictional universes. Nowhere have I said there shouldn't be items for fictional subjects though. I could really care less if there's a item for Zeus. That's not what the conversation is about. Your just deflecting.
I totally agree with you when it comes to the difference between a fictional universe and a franchise. You'd have to agree with me though that the terms are commonly used interchangeably and that most of the time at least colloquially when someone calls a body of work a "universe" what they really mean is a franchise. I can do a Google Search right now for the term "fictional universe of X work" and will probably find some results. That doesn't inherently mean that everything is a "fictional universe" or that it then deserves a "fictional universe" item on Wikidata. The question is how to determine which works should or shouldn't have a separate "fictional universe" entry.
Personally, I think requiring sources is a good standard. The intention behind not requiring sources is laudable but doesn't really resolve the problem. I don't think getting rid of the property for fictional universes really fixes it either. Since again, they do exist in some circumstances. The main thing is just not creating an instance where everything has a "fictional universe" item simply because of inclusivity or whatever. I reject the idea that the only two options here are either absolutely no standards what-so-ever or deleting the property outright. There should a good middle ground that everyone can be satisfied with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke about gods, because it illustrates that existance in the real world is not central.
People frequently use terms interchangably and that frequently produces data quality issues because people don't distinguish different concepts.
There's value in having a coherent way to model the information whether two fictional characters that are notable share a fictional universe. Whether a source explicitely uses the phrase "fictional universe" to express that or uses other word is not central. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I don't think "people do things" is a valid justification for duplicating information with multiple properties and\or creating items for non-exiting concepts. And I disagree that existence doesn't matter. If someone created an item for their imaginary friend it would be deleted on site regardless of if there's items for Greek gods or not. The endless obfuscation on your end is rather trite though. So we'll have to agree to disagree and end it there. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with an admin that people shouldn't have entries for their pet rocks. Have fun with that though. I'm sure allowing for made up nonsense will totally bring in and retain new editors. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost identical labels

[edit]

Hi,

I stumble quite often on pair of items with (almost) the same label in English for very similar concept. For instance list of Bundesliga top scorers (Q1750068) and list of Bundesliga top scorers by season (Q695847) or List of Penthouse Pets (Q2719030) and list of Penthouse Pets (Q3623106). Could someone have a look at these pairs?

Bonus question: how to find them all (in this case, it's list with only the first letter being uppercase or lowercase but there is other cases).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Duplicates is related. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a custom P625 JS button

[edit]

Hello, I would like with my common.js a small script that could automatise a link button under P625 statements and that would link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=LATITUDE&mlon=LONGITUDE&zoom=17#map=17/LATITUDE/LONGITUDE&layers=T (replace the coordinates with the content of P625). Where could I ask for this? Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 06:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing a batch

[edit]

I made a mistake for the batch https://editgroups.toolforge.org/b/QSv2/238496/ and when I try to undo it, I get a "Server Error (500)". Is there a way to get the batch undoing working? Is it generally broken? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't get my OAUTH working for EditGroups. --Lymantria (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: It looks like your batch is only missing qualifiers. You can just run QuickStatements again and it will add the qualifiers to the values (no need to remove the values first). Dexxor (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, the problem is that some of the qualifiers were wrong. I pulled down to copy value and it counted the property numbers for the qualifiers up (some errors that result in no data but also a bunch of wrong data). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You could make a new batch that removes values with bad qualifiers and re-adds them with the right qualifiers (aka using QuickStatements as a poor man's undo batch button). Dexxor (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I have recently done some maintenance work on this tool, but more work would be needed to make it work reliably. I also get a HTTP 500 error when trying to log in, so I can see it is indeed broken. I notice that my motivation to maintain this tool is dwindling. I have added a banner to the tool, pointing to a new Phabricator task to request help. As much as I see that this tool continues to fulfill an important need in the community, I continue to think that its architecture isn't fit for purpose on the long term (see this list of problems I mentioned 5 years ago). I am happy to see that with the advent of Wikibase.Cloud (where EditGroups isn't available), Wikimedia Deutschland has started to hear voices from users who struggle with undoing imports on Wikibase.Cloud, and so they are considering deploying EditGroups there. This is the paradox I am confronted with: the importance of infrastructure in this area can only be visible if EditGroups isn't available. So, in a sense, if I want something reliable to appear in this space, I shouldn't maintain EditGroups. On the other hand it really pains me to see this tool broken and people struggling to do their work because of that. It also pains me to ask for more work from others. − Pintoch (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pintoch are you planning to get it sooner or later operational again, or need I go through the manual work of undoing the badge? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary results of the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

[edit]

Hello all,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. Close to 6000 community members from more than 180 wiki projects have voted.

The following four candidates were the most voted:

  1. Christel Steigenberger
  2. Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz
  3. Victoria Doronina
  4. Lorenzo Losa

While these candidates have been ranked through the vote, they still need to be appointed to the Board of Trustees. They need to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the Bylaws. New trustees will be appointed at the next Board meeting in December 2024.

Learn more about the results on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group


MPossoupe_(WMF) 08:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House numbers, Inc.

[edit]

On 1-57, Ovington Street Sw3 (Q26319042) I would like to say that the item includes 1-57 of the house numbers, but feel constrained to just include 1 and 57 and hope the casual reader infers the rest. Is there a way to say the house numbers include the sucessive numbers? No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use house number (P670)1-57. This is explicitly allowed by the format constraint (Q21502404). Dexxor (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@No Swan So Fine I don't know if there's a way to show that these are the odd-numbered houses in the street other than by putting it in the description or label, like in Nos 95 to 101 (Odd Numbers) (Q29492369) Piecesofuk (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would a qualifier of applies to part (P518)odd number (Q13366129) be sufficient? William Graham (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuko Onda (Q59462533)

[edit]

Shizuko Onda (Q59462533) has an uncited claim, added by a user who is no longer active, that this artist is female. I don't have a citation to the contrary, but believe that is wrong. I'm not sure what I should do in that circumstance. - Jmabel (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their name is wrong as well, it should be Shizuko. As for the gender, I believe it should simply be removed if it is in question and there's no source to point to. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Museum of Visual Arts in Uruguay says she's female: [5] / [6] Shizuko would be a female name. En-wiki en:Shizuka says Shizuka can be male or female. Jheald (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Oxford Reference says he's male [7], but gives him the female name Shizuko. Jheald (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two reports about her works in Bucharest both name her Shizuko and call her "she", [8], [9]. Another article includes photos with the museum labels, that do indeed call her Shizuko [10]. Jheald (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Shizuko vs. Shizuka seems to be a typo on my part. Apologies! I've corrected it. Mcampany (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Museo Nacional de Artes Visuales also uses "Shizuka" so it should be an alias.
I have pointed to the sources shared here, and put female as preferred and male as deprecated. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #649

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2024-10-14. Missed the previous one? See issue #648

Events

  • Upcoming:
    • Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group session 15 October, 2024: We have our next LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group Session on Tuesday, 15 October, 2024 at 9am PT / 12pm ET / 16:00 UTC / 6pm CEST (Time zone converter). https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1729008000 Christa Strickler will be our first Project Series lead with her joint project with the Wikidata Religion & Theology Community of Practice to contribute biographical data to Wikidata from the IRFA database https://irfa.paris/en/en-learn-about-a-missionary/ using the Mix’n’Match tool. We are excited to learn more about this project, provide a forum for discussion and shared learning, and lend a hand while building new skills. Event page: [11]
    • The next Wikidata+Wikibase office hours will take place on Wednesday, 16th October 2024 at 18:00 CEST in the Wikidata Telegram group. The Wikidata and Wikibase office hours are online events where the development team presents what they have been working on over the past quarter, and the community is welcome to ask questions and discuss important issues related to the development of Wikidata and Wikibase.
    • Wikidata:Twelfth Birthday: We already have 30 events scheduled on the list 😍. As a reminder, when your event is ready, don't forget to:

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Elemwala (এলেমওয়ালা) (https://elemwala.toolforge.org): is a proof-of-concept interface that allows you to input abstract content and get natural language text in a given output language. There may well be errors with particular inputs, and the text may not be quite as natural as you might expect, but that's where your improvements to your language's lexemes, other Wikidata items, and the tool's source code come in!
  • mlscores: Tool for calculating multilinguality score of Wikidata items (including properties). E.g. for Wikidata (Q2013), the scores are - en: 99.66%, fr: 89.49%, es: 84.07%, pt: 68.47%. For instance of (P31), the scores are - en: 99.86%, fr: 87.12%, es: 80.83%, pt: 61.37%.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • Launch of WikiProject Deprecate P642: The goal of this project is to prepare for deprecation, and eventual removal, of the property of (P642). Currently, of (P642) is labeled as "being deprecated", meaning its use is still allowed, but discouraged. From a peak of around 900,000 uses, the property now has around 700,000 uses (see status here). Our goal is to reduce that as much as possible in a systematic way, while ensuring that appropriate properties exist to replace all valid uses of of (P642). The latter is key to officially deprecating the property. Before removing the property, we want to get as close to zero uses as possible.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • EntitySchemas: We are continuing the work on making it possible to find an EntitySchema by its label or aliases when linking to an EntitySchema in a statement (phab:T375641)
  • Design system: We are continuing the work on migrating the Query Builder from Wikit to Codex
  • REST API: We finished the work on language fallback support in the REST API (phab:T371605)

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

I really like the blog post about the SNAIL approach https://commonists.wordpress.com/2024/10/09/small-data-slow-data-a-snail-approach-to-wikidata/ PAC2 (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of items sourced purely to a Wiki Loves Monuments ID

[edit]

A couple of weeks ago I had nominated some items for gravestone for deletion that were linked nothing to else but a Wiki Loves Monuments ID. Since there's nothing in Wikidata:Notability or the original proposal for the property saying that it is an indicator of notability. Which would make sense considering Wiki Loves Monuments IDs are user generated and based purely on the existence of said monument.

@Multichill: Subsequently closed all the deletion requests as keep because Wiki Loves Monuments is supposedly a well established criterion for notability and then they threatened to block me if I renominated the items for deletion. Which, aside from just coming off like bad faithed bullying, really doesn't make much sense. So does anyone besides @Multichill: know if Wiki Loves Monuments IDs are an indicator of notability or know of any past discussions about it? Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A WLM id usually means an item has been named in an official heritage register, that may not be available online. So if a WLM id exists, it's probably best to start from the assumption that the item probably is notable, unless there are any very clear reasons to think otherwise. Also, consider that removing items from the WLM list here is disruptive to a high-profile project, and may affect Wikipedia pages that automatically draw on the list here.
Looking at consequences, it would seem to me that the downside of including an item here that may not be notable is rather less that the downside of not including an item here that is notable. There is also the question of removing other people's work; and affecting images on Commons that may refer to the item here.
For all these reasons, I would suggest to be disposed to tread very softly in respect of items that have a WLM id. If there is a group of items that you think should not be included, it probably makes sense in the first place to take it up with the national group that put together the WLM list for that country. I would strongly advice that any deletion request here should not be made unless it has been cleared and approved by that group first. Best regards, Jheald (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WLM id usually means an item has been named in an official heritage register @Jheald: From what I understand that's not actually the case. Supposedly one of the reasons there's Wiki Loves Monuments IDs in the first place is because there's a lot of monuments that aren't in official government databases. So the IDs serve to fill in the gaps. Which makes since because there's be no point in the IDs to begin with otherwise. I know that's the case at least with monuments in Ukraine and Russia though. There's a lot of monuments in both countries that aren't in official databases that Wiki Loves Monuments has IDs for.
May affect Wikipedia pages that automatically draw on the list here. All of the items that I nominated for deletion weren't connected to other projects. Let alone where they notable enough to have Wikipedia articles or anything like that. Same goes for there being images for them on Commons. None of them did. So I don't really see how them being deleted would be disruptive or have an effect on anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik, the least currently of Wiki Loves Monuments ID is that it could be used in external tools. For example Wikimedia Commons app (Q12528989) and https://app.wikilovesmonuments.it uses it. More globally the Monuments database would transition to use Wikidata as backend. The reason for using single property instead of multiple ones is that in software development point of view it is overly complex to manage rules for multiple different properties. There are is also SPARQL performance reasons why one will want to keep the number of properties smaller. --Zache (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the interpretation of what we see as falling under our notability policy gets decided over at deletion requests and some discussions about undeletion of items that happen elsewhere. Simply, renominating items after you see that a category of items get decide to be kept at Request of Deletion causes unnecessary work and is disruptive.
It's worth noting that our policies speak of "can be described using serious and publicly available references" and not "are described using serious and publicly available references", so the absence of references on an item is not in itself a reason why the item is not notable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I totally agree that something's notability should be decided over at deletion requests. The problem is that Multichill unilaterally closed the deletion requests as keep when I had just opened them and there was no discussion. Otherwise I would have been more then happy to not start this conversation and let the normal process play out. You can't have it both ways where it's disruptive to renominate an item for deletion but then it's totally fine for admins to unliterally close DRs after a couple days based on their own personal opinions and regardless if there's been any discussion about it though.
I could ultimately care less if items for monuments that are actually notable exit on here. The problem is that Multichill made a blanket pronouncement that every monument with a Wiki Loves Monuments ID is de-facto notable and then unliterally steamrolled any sort of discussion about it. At least IMO it's totally valid to renominate said items for deletion in an instance like that. Any disruption or extra work it might cause is totally on Multichill for unliterally closing the DRs out of process. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I'm one of the folks who create items for component parts of monuments that lack references or monuments that lack references, usually in Brazil. I believe a low percentage of listed monuments in Brazil even have a Wikidata item -- which I know from experience. And certainly not any references. I've visited the regional federal offices for listed monuments (IPHAN) to locate the monuments of a region, and there's a lack of documentation at all levels of government--federal, state, and municipal. WMB is actively collecting sources at all levels of government and academia, but it's very time consuming, or the references exist in documents that are rare or lost.
I think the context of the regions we're working with on Wiki Loves Monuments is important. Can I request that folks take a pause on deleting monuments, or components of monuments? Creating an item with no references is an interesting process, because putting the cart (the item) before the horse (references) puts you on the lookout for the references themselves! I often find highly detailed information signs, but I consider them within copyright so I don't upload them.
Most importantly, thank you all for your work on monuments in Wikidata. You're contributing to an architectural inventory that does not exist elsewhere for individual countries or even regions, and in practice does it contribute to the survival and/or preservation of these works? It sure does! Prburley (talk)
Putting the cart (the item) before the horse (references) puts you on the lookout for the references themselves! It really doesn't though. The items just stay unreferenced for years and then they can't be deleted because people like Multichill and ChristianKl complain about how doing DRs for unsourced items cause extra work or whatever. Regardless, it's ridiculous to create a bunch of unreferenced items purely because you think sources might exist for them and/or you plan on adding them later at some point in the future. Wikidata:Notability might as well not even exist at that point. But hey, screw the notability guidelines because nominating the items for deletion causes extra work though. Sounds like a great way to run a website. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:Notability does not say that items staying unreferenced for years is a problem. It just doesn't.
Wikidata is not run so with the intention of work of well intentioned contributors get deleted but so that a lot of different people can contribute to Wikidata.
The spirit of deletionism isn't healthy for Wikipedia either and we don't need it on Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I mean, realistically there are serious usability problems on both projects that are caused by being to inclusionist. With Wikidata specifically the main reason I got into this was because there was an item for the fictional city of New York that was being automatically added to items instead of the actual city. Otherwise I could really care less, but I don't think your handwaving about how a lot of different people can contribute to the project should necessarily come at the cost of being able to do basic things like add a location to an item. Maybe that's just me though.
I originally asked the question so I wouldn't needlessly be nominating similar items for deletion in the future if monuments with Wiki Loves Monuments IDs were in fact notable. I know admins are their own special kind of fragile, but I do find you calling me a deletionist just because I asked a question about the guidelines rather patronizing. I'm sorry if this whole thing upset you that much, but there's no reason to insult me over it. I wasn't planning on nominating any more unsourced items for deletion anyway. It was just something I thought was worth clarifying. That's all. Have fun degrading usability of the site though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the goal is to move national Wiki Loves Monuments databases to Wikidata. To achieve this, detailed Wikidata items are necessary, either because they are notable in their own right or because they are part of larger notable objects. For example, they could be buildings located on an island that is protected as a whole. This is why these items are needed and should not be deleted. --Zache (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with "detailed Wikidata items" for the monuments. The problem is that they inherently can't be detailed if they are unsourced. There's certainly monuments with IDs out there that are detailed though, but that's not what I'm talking about. The problem comes in where there's a years old, unsourced item for a monument that has no other information except the location, name (which is usually made up to begin with), and a Wiki Loves Monuments ID.
I've certainly added more information to a few them myself, but at the end of day the responsibility for doing that should be on the original creator of the item and it should be done when the item is created. Not 12 years later by a random passerby. Just like with any other thing on here. I highly doubt the same standard would apply for anything else. I've certainly seen unsourced items for people, movies, locations, Etc. Etc. deleted before. Monuments just seem to get special pass for some reason. I have my suspicions as to why, but their clearly treated differently. I'm sure this whole thing would have gone a lot different if this it was about something else besides monuments. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things in the location data category in which validity you can confirm just by walking to it. --Zache (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but no one does it. i didn't know personal experience was a valid source anyway though. Clearly the bar for notability and sourcing has been lowered essentially to non-existence since I signed up. That's on me thinking there were still some kind of standards on here. As long as someone had a dream about it once, whatever. As long as different people can contribute to the project right? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another identfier for monuments or heritage designation (P1435) should be enough in most cases; the source could be a reference URL or stated in (P248). With people there is an additional policy (Wikidata:Living people), and the deleted items often only have user-generated identifiers. People and films are also typical subjects for hoaxes. Peter James (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: In your opinion would it be OK for someone to create an item that was sourced purely to unsubstantiated information from a Wikipedia article? Also how long do you think unsourced information should stay on here or is "indefinitely" totally fine? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property: previously named as

[edit]

Does a property for former name exist? Prototyperspective (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: For organisations etc, use official name (P1448) if appropriate, or otherwise name (P2561), with the qualifier end time (P582) = date. If you don't know the date, qualifier end time (P582) = unknown value will do. For human beings birth name (P1477) and family name (P734) may also be appropriate. If another name is the name that is current, make a statement for that too, and give it preferred rank. Hope that helps, Jheald (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I think it solves it. I would use it for organizations, websites, and software – let me know if it doesn't work for any of these. I think many items miss this data and only have it in their description or aliases (maybe largely because it's so unclear?). See e.g. here. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
official name (P1448) works for anything that actually has an official name. That means that there has to be some official entity that gives out the name, which is usually true for organizations, websites, and software. We have nickname (P1449) and native label (P1705) and a few other name properties for other kind of names. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: It's not a property but there's former name (Q29569274). Although it only seems to have a hundred or so uses. So I doubt it's worth adopting more generally. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A hundred or so is not little on its own and also because that is probably only a tiny proportion of what the use would be if there was a a dedicated and easy to find well-known property for it. Seems like former name is used in the qualifier "reason for deprecated rank" (mostly?) and the former name is set on properties like given name. I don't know what the downsides of adopting this property are if there are any. I don't think it's important but I do see an issue with the lack of it causing data quality to be lower as people put the same info into all sorts of different fields such as the aliases and so on. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason the item exists is because ja-wiki has a page for it. In contrast to new property generation that has a process that prevents people from creating properties that go against the way we model data, people can easily use items for purposes for which they don't exist.
While someone added "reason for deprecated rank" it's not a valid reason for deprecating a statement. We just set the current name as preferred rank.
We have the name (P2561) and subproperties for allowing user to had high quality data about names that have proper qualifiers and that can have references. Actually stating end time (P582) takes more effort, but it leads to higher quality data then without it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Briefly reiterating that not having a property for this leads to lower data quality. I thought a property for this already exists so I asked here instead of proposing it which I'm quite unsure of whether I will do. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a general principle of stating with end time (P582) when a claim that was true in the past is not true anymore. That principle finds application with properties related to names but also any other property where there are changes over time.
Requiring data that's entered to be high quality (be explicit about the end time) does lead to less data being entered, but I don't think it's as easy to summarize that as "lower data quality" because there's less data entered.
Having a general principle around how time works allows people to learn to use end time (P582) with any property instead of needing to learn a separate property for each case where time comes into play. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for these clarifications. In that case, I think somewhere or somebody should probably organize items with texts like "previously named" or "prior name" (or e.g. having prior names only in aliases) to have their data converted according to the best practice / standard you just described here. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of different names in aliases. Actually, chosing the right name property, right qualifiers and a good reference for a claim about names, is not something you can easily automate based on looking at the aliases.
In practice, there's also the case where one organization gets replaced by a different organization with a different name and we have one item for each. Someone might write in the description of an item that X is the former name of Y when in fact X was the predessor organization to Y.
If someone in interested in improving the quality of certain items, documenting all the names properly is a way of doing so. At the same time, most people are likely not interested in improving the names of random items. There are many cases in Wikidata where improvements are made. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere was I talking about automating it. I don't understand how this relates to my comment. I was saying somebody should probably look at e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=previously+named&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns120=1 and move the previous name into proper fields such as via using the end time property as you described. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: I'm not sure what the deal with "former name" is. The reason I said it's probably not worth using is because low usage numbers for something like that can sometimes show it's not an "accepted" property for other items and/or that it's being phased out. So I'm just trying to save you the hassle of getting reverted if turns out to be a bad property or whatever. It is an option though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrototyperspectiveFor the claim "Somebody else (then me) should to X" you need to argue more than just that doing X is benefitial.
@Adamant1 One of the problem of the using the item for former name as P31, is that it confuses the entity with the name of the entity. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then don't. I don't see what more to argue but I was saying "Okay case closed, somebody should probably check this and move the prior names according to what you described (Property:P582) at some point". Prototyperspective (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl, that's fair. Thanks for the extra context. @Prototyperspective: At least from what I've seen there doesn't seem to be a formal or organized way to depreciate and cleanup an item on here. At least outside of deletion requests I guess, but there's certainly nothing like what Commons has for dealing with bad categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the reason for the name change is a change of operator, as it is for ships, I use operator (P137) with the date qualifier and official_name qualified with that operator. Vicarage (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of different ways this is currently handled (or often not specified) which means there isn't really one expectable queryable semantically-parsable field. Two notes:
  • if there was a property for this then things could still be set on e.g. last name or official_name with qualifiers in addition and one could have an at-scale tool/script show which items that should have something set in that property miss that property
  • Many don't know the end time or start time or in many cases it's not known, just that there was a prior name and which previous name
Prototyperspective (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding additional properties that could also be used does not lead to a expectable queryable field as different people are going to use different solutions.
unknown value Help is valid for those cases where you don't know the exact end time.
To the extend that data models frequently are not specified in Wikidata, the solution is to acutally specify them in a document, likely on some Wikiproject. You don't solve problems caused by a lack of documentation by adding new properties.
If you have a problem within Wikidata, thinking "one could have an at-scale tool/script show which items that should", you have to think about the software capabilities that we actually have to show things at scale. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how your approach would handle multiple name changes. Some ships have 8 name changes over 5 names, and think about Elizabeth Taylor's real name with all those marriages! Vicarage (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entering them as different values in the previous name prop. Ideally each with end time set if public and known. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not on your end of course but this whole thing really just comes off like over engineering for it's own sake. "Why have a single concise way do a particular thing when there's already 50 other less clear ways to do it?" I get wanting to give people options but it's way to obtuse and spreads so thing thin that the former name isn't even worth adding at that point. Like say I have my way of doing it, you have yours, someone else has theirs Etc. Etc. If I'm looking for businesses by the former name I have to know you and the other people's way of doing it even exists in the first place, which isn't a given, and then create a query with 15 properties for no other reason then giving people options. Come on, that's not a workable way to run a database or have a website. Seriously, just have one way to do it and stick to that. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if anybody in this discussion has looked at the link I shared twice that shows search results with countless items that have the previous name only set in inappropriate ways such as in the description field and so on. Having a property is exactly about Like say I have my way of doing it, you have yours, someone else has theirs Etc. Etc. If I'm looking for businesses by the former name I have to know you and the other people's way of doing it even exists in the first place, which isn't a given – this is the thing it addresses. just have one way to do it and stick to that that's what I'm saying. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WD convention is that label and description are really for the use of humans searching the site, the real meat of the site used by software should be contained in properties. And there is a good argument that named things should repeat their labels in name (P2561) and official name (P1448) (TBH, I'd have never allowed the distinction, and merged them, just leaving nickname (P1449) separate, but its too late now). For the majority of things that have never changed name just a label may be fine, for those that have, the convention of recording with one of the existing properties the current value without time qualifiers, and old values with them, we have a robust way of handling the problem. Adding a new property just for old names would give another option for people to go their own way. I'd agree that all 300 of your examples should be visited to ensure that old names were copied out of descriptions to formal properties, but there is no harm in leaving the descriptions as is, if one human thinks it explains the situation better to another.
Also aliases are for people, alternate names recorded there should be put in properties that indicate why they are present. An example is the convention for no initialisms in the label, only the alias, to be coded up so a bot knows whether it will get NATO or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Vicarage (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one human thinks it explains the situation better to another. No offense, but stuff like that just encourages bad habits and creating holes in the data. If it's better to have the information as a property then there's no reason to retain it in the description. If anything things like that just train people to put information in descriptions instead of doing it the "normal" way. I see it happen all the time myself. It's a pointless waste of everyone's time having to enter information into a property just because the original editor didn't know or care that they were suppose to do it that way to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to add to an item of a person that they were born in London and type London into the search bar it's very useful to see the description that allows me to distinguish between the city in the UK, the given name and the city in Canada without having to open the page of the item and looking at properties. Descriptions also get shown in some Wikipedia searches.
There would be some benefit of having descriptions automatically be created based on information that's in properties. Maybe, we will have that in the future via WikiFunctions. Today, we don't have it and we likely won't have it in a year either.
Plenty, of Wikidata items get created because someone created a Wikipedia article. Often the people creating it don't know much about how information can be expressed in Wikidata. If a person likes that writes a short description and sets P31, that's already a huge improvement over not adding any information. Wikidata has diverse users who care about different aspects. Different users have different motivations about filling holes in data. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example I try to ensure the description for warships to be "1914 A-class destroyer", information that is contained in properties of the item, but tells anyone searching that they've found the right date and type of ship, very useful when ship names are reused over centuries. I'm sure similar conventions exist for other fields, like country, occupation and lifespan of people. I try to ensure that vessel class and launch date are coded in properties and copied to description, and the official name is copied to aliases, though trying to police aliases is not worth it, as people put all sorts of stuff in them. With the advent of mul language code, its the mul versions of label and aliases that should be recorded, but the description needs to be in English etc (though I let others do other languages if they care). My bots always use the properties, falling back to the labels. A key concession for people is that the label can vary with language, so a second-hand US cruiser that is the pride and joy of another country's navy might have different label/alias split. Regarding the OP, this is why all names are coded in properties but the most useful, not the latest, one goes in the label for people to read.
And I try to not overwrite hand-crafted descriptions that tell searching people more than my formula would. I hope this approach is both comprehensive and pragmatic. Vicarage (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you except that for Adding a new property just for old names would give another option for people to go their own way I think the opposite would be the case: it would standardize and merge the different ways this data is currently entered and thereby trim the many ways people go their own ways entering this data. I don't think this issue is particularly important but I meant to raise this issue and make sure what is meant is understood. your examples should be visited I'm not very familiar with the WD search operators but I think if there was a property one could copy or move the data from good ways this data is currently entered (eg in name but with end time qualifier) to this property and then create a query that shows all items with e.g. text "previous name" or "prior name" anywhere in the item or multiple name values but no previous name set. I guess it would be nearly as good if one showed items with multiple names set without any of the items having a preferred rank or similar. if one human thinks it explains the situation better to another disagree on that because it's not usable data in terms of being able to be queried or used etc. Anyway, again I don't think it's important but it may be better to address this sooner rather than later as more dispersed unstructured data in the future would mean this would be harder to get right later on. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation warning that mobile users can't add Statements

[edit]

Would it be possible/appropriate for someone to add that mobile users can't add statements to Help:Statements#Adding_statements and maybe the nutshell. Quite frustrating and confusing. Commander Keane (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, were you using mobile itself when looking at the Help page? If so, perhaps we can add a fairly visible notice to that page for mobile only? As well as a smaller note somewhere else. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was on mobile at the time, attempting to create my first item on mobile. Commander Keane (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be more useful to have a note on the item page when you are editing it? or on the help page? or both? ·addshore· talk to me! 23:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be applied to mobile only then on the item page would be good. The help page should mention it regardless, probably a hat note in the section I initially linked to. Commander Keane (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commemorative stamp

[edit]

The Israeli national postal service issued a commemorative stamp to mark the 70th anniverary of an organization's founding. What's the property for commemorative stamp for adding this info to the organization's WD item? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no good reason to link from the item of Israel Postal Company (Q671700) to the stamp. The stamp should likely link to Israel Postal Company (Q671700) via issued by (P2378) and maybe use commemorates (P547) to an item like "70th anniverary of the issuing organization". Maybe, also something else for commemorates (P547) that uses qualifiers. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RESTATING QUERY: @ChristianKl: With which Property to add the Statement "commemorative stamp (Q1756502)" to the WD item of the organization (Gevatron), perhaps similar to the Property "award received (P166)"? There's no WD item for the stamp itself; what's notable is that this organization received recognition with a commemorative stamp. Or must the stamp have its own WD item to proceed? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to add no WD item to the organziation itself, but to have an item for the stamp. But it could be that someone else has a different idea of how it should be modelled. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created a WD item for the Gevatron 70th anniversary commemorative stamp which still needs details added per a postage stamp's Statement "has characteristic" (P1552). However, I still believe there needs to be a reciprocal indication on the WD item of the stamp's topic, Gevatron. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceb

[edit]

Bautzen (Q31906993) looks essentially the same as Bautzen (Q14835) except 1 machine generated article. what to do? RoyZuo (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, one item is for the municipality, and another one for the town which happens to be the seat. I did not check whether the municipality only consists of the town, but this is likely the case here. In the past, I proposed to make an exception to the notability criteria, so that the presence of the Cebuano sitelink does not create notability. Until this has been accepted, both items are notable, and we have to let it go. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to de:Bautzen, there are 29 districts (formerly 25) in Bautzen (Q14835); only six of those districts (Bautzen-Innenstadt (Q161006), Bautzen-Nordostring (Q1554392), Bautzen-Gesundbrunnen (Q160616), Südvorstadt (Q2381665), Westvorstadt (Q2565705) and Ostvorstadt (Q160655)) are in Bautzen (Q31906993). Peter James (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter James i dont get it. is the capital ceb:Bautzen (kapital sa distrito) of the district (Landkreis Bautzen) not the municipality ceb:Bautzen (munisipyo)? RoyZuo (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is feature class, so ceb:Bautzen (kapital sa distrito) is a populated place and ceb:Bautzen (munisipyo) is an administrative division. I don't know if municipalities or populated places are usually regarded as capitals of districts in Germany, but if Bautzen (Q14835) is the capital then "Bautzen (kapital sa distrito)" should probably be changed to "Bautzen (lungsod)". Sometimes it is better to merge, but in this case there are districts of Bautzen (Q14835) that are not in Bautzen (Q31906993). Peter James (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject type contraint

[edit]

For the Property P2378 (Issued by) regarding a postage stamp, there's a Statement Q21503250 (Subject type constraint) flagged that this subject type doesn't apply - though it does to such items as "banknote" and "coin". Could "postage stamp" be added to the Subject type (or the Property "Issued by")? Or what Property to use as a Statement on the WD item to indicate the official body (Israel Philatelic Federation) that issued the postage stamp? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees

[edit]

Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.

Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:

Applications for the committees open on 16 October 2024. Applications for the Affiliations Committee close on 18 November 2024, and applications for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on 2 December 2024. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cst@wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.

For the Committee Support team,


-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VIAF dumps?

[edit]

Hello! Does anybody know anything about the VIAF dumps available at https://viaf.org/viaf/data/ The last one is from August. I am using those dumps since about 6 years and there was a new dump every month, but now there are two month missing? Last weekend I wrote a mail and asked, usually there is an answer on the next day, but I got no answer? --Wurgl (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProVe, a new tool to help with the quality of references

[edit]

Thanks to all of you you have so far tried ProVe, the new tool for checking the quality of references in Wikidata. It's greatly appreciated :-) (link to the archived discussion here).

@samoasambia thanks for your suggestions! We are updating the script import instructions in the documentation to avoid copy-pasting code, great idea. We're also adding ProVe to the tools catalog. Thanks for your help!

@Huntster thanks for letting us know, this was a bug. It's now been fixed, if you could try again and let us know if the new version works that would be great! Thanks

Just as a reminder for everyone else, ProVe provides information about the quality of the references of Wikidata items, based on techniques like large language models, triple verbalisation, and semantic similairty. We have also developed the **ProVe Gadget**, which visually presents ProVe's results as a widget at the top of a Wikidata item page. Any Wikidata user can easily turn this gadget on, see here for install instructions. You can use it to request the processing of references, showing reference scores, navigating problematic references, and quickly fix them with better ones.

If you're curious about this we'd greatly appreciate your feedback! :-) Albert.meronyo (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to use it, should be a useful thing, thanks. For some reason, the gadget does not analyse web.archive.org correctly and is unable to 'read' the text from the web archive. So, it says about it 'Sentence in external URL to be checked, possibly not authoritative'. --Wolverène (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think we may have to do additional checks to read text from the web archive, indeed. What item are you trying to analyse? Thanks for using ProVe! Albert.meronyo (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, e.g. Q23648408. (It is also listing IGN there as not authoritative although this is quite a well-known video games-related media with the serious team...) --Wolverène (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curating Musicals Data

[edit]

Hi, I'm looking at editing a bunch of musical (Q2743) data and their relations to cast album (Q108064011).

My questions are:

  • Is the appropriate action here to create a new page for each of A Little Night Music (Q2530921)'s cast albums? I think it matches the latter notability requirements, but I don't know to what extent Wikidata should just be mirroring every album from MusicBrainz.
  • Can you please point me toward any more specific groups/pages where it might be more appropriate to have this discussion?

David!! (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? "An entity with Steam application ID should also have a statement IsThereAnyDeal ID."

[edit]

This does not make sense to me. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steam application ID (P1733) and IsThereAnyDeal ID (P12570) RVA2869 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entity incorrectly added as disambiguation page

[edit]

The entity Honesto (Q107365171) was defined as instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). I assume that was an error, because I don't see any point in the history of the article in enwiki in which it was a disambiguation page. What should be done in cases like this? Should I move the link of the enwiki article to a new entity page or should I change the value of instance of (P31) and remove all the descriptions assuming all of them mean "disambiguation page"? -- Agabi10 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was already an item Honesto (Q15572194) but the article was moved and a disambiguation page was created. After disambiguation page was deleted and the article moved back, the links should be updated automatically but on this occasion they were not - possibly because the move was via draft namespace and involved swapping two pages and moving without redirects. Usually I would have moved anything relevant to Q15572194 and requested deletion of Q107365171, but as statements had been added to Q107365171 I decided to merge to Q15572194. Peter James (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2262817918"