Wikidata:Project chat

Museum wall text

[edit]

Is there any way to cite museum wall text as a source? - Jmabel (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would cite it as part of the exhibition it's in: [1], [2]. Circeus (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work for the permanent displays, perhaps you could use permanent exhibition (Q10426913). But other sources would be better, as all museums labels tend to be ephemeral. Vicarage (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicarage: For permanent exhibits, they typically last many decades. I usually also photo-document them (but don't typically upload them). - Jmabel (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give a concrete example: Dimitrie Mihăilescu (Q38201638) gives a 1922 death date that cites commons:Creator:Dimitrie Mihăilescu which cites… nothing, and which has now been reworked to use Dimitrie Mihăilescu (Q38201638), so it cannot be edited to correct this. The label on a work of his in the Museum of Art Collections (Bucharest) says 1921. Seems more citeable to me than a Commons user with no citation, so I would think that there ought to be a way to reference it. It seems really weird that some guy editing Commons would be citeable, and museum wall text would not. - Jmabel (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is the effective consensus really that the wall text at the Museum of Art Collections is unciteable, but some random Commons user is citeable? - Jmabel (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again: I'd really like either to have someone more active than I am in this site say, "Yes, that really is a consensus here" or "No, it's an accidental consequence of a series of more-or-less unrelated decisions." - Jmabel (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broad or narrow external identifiers

[edit]

@Jheald and I disagree over whether external identifers should have narrow or broad scope. Its in the context of introducing a new Wikidata:Property_proposal/trove.scot_ID to replace 4 Canmore (scottish heritage site being phased out) entries, as trove.scot promises to absorb many databases on diverse subjects across all of Scotland. I argue that people on WD want to know "What does trove.scot say on this subject", while he believes we should create multiple IDs based on the directory ontology they use, so a "place" has a different ID from an "object" or "planning decision". What do others think? Vicarage (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the ontologies *we* have for different sorts of items on wikidata, the different kinds of constraints we have for different kinds of items, and the different aims we may have for completion of different parts of their data.

A thesaurus is a database of a different kind of data, compared to a database of historic places.

Just because they are operated by the same organisation, that doesn't mean it makes sense to bundle them all up in the one property.

In the case of Trove one set of IDs are intended to be a direct continuation of the IDs for historic sites in the existing Canmore database (which is being retired). For these IDs it makes much more sense to simply change the URL formatter to point them to the entries in the new site, rather than muddling them together with entries for all sorts of other very different kinds of things. Jheald (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point. Instead of one or many properties, one could group IDs belonging to similar classes in their own properties which might be the best option in many cases. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many different trove.scot "databases" are there? Historically we have supported both "broad" and "narrow" identifiers here; there are advantages to the narrow ones in regards to constraints etc. but I don't think there's really a strong preference on it, and I think a broad one is better than creating dozens of properties if that is the other choice. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar discussion last week at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Concertzender_ID − my opinion there leaned towards narrow identifiers. It depends also a bit how many properties we would be talking about should we choose to do narrow properties − the linked proposal could do a better job at explaining that IMO − reading through the discussion it would be 6? That sounds very reasonable (if you compare to, say, our 12 properties for MusicBrainz. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the organisation's plans. They seem to be absorbing lots of different databases, but not preserving their names, just using simple keywords in URL sections, and we can see 6 at present. That doesn't help our plans to ensure coverage of Listings, Buildings at Risk, Dictionary of Scottish Architects etc, as we have no control of how they will fold databases into this new structure. I don't see why why our entries, with a very sophisticated ontology, also need a crude ontology for external site IDs, with each organisation having a different one, with our guessing what they mean by their subdivisions. If pre-existing database names are preserved on a site, we can respect that history in an id, but otherwise, we just know that they have a record of a concept. I'm glad I'm not writing queries to find out "what do music sites say about this". Vicarage (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I (User:Jheald) asked User:Tagishsimon what his thoughts were on this, as he's done about as much work with the HES data as anyone (if not considerably more). He says that Sadly I'm still disinclined to contribute to / post on WD :( but thinks that Omnibus ID is a wretched idea, and sent me the following comments, that he said You're welcome to post into the discussion, if you wish:

" fwiw:

• Trove currently hosts:

(A) Designations: corresponds with Historic Environment Scotland ID (P709) (listed buildings, scheduled monuments). 55k distinct IDs in WD, 62k records in Trove

(B) Places: corresponds with Canmore ID (P718) (canmore ID). 106k distinct IDs in WD, 330k records in Trove

(C) Objects: no current WD property. 2k records in Trove

(D1 to D4) Thesauruses: corresponds to Canmore maritime-type ID (P7906), Canmore object-type ID (P7907), Canmore monument-type ID (P7922). Trove has 4 thesauruses (WD is missing property for Scottish Archaeological Periods & Ages)

(E) Digital images: no current WD property. 1.37M records in Trove

(F) Archives. no current property in WD. 2.5M records in Canmore

Possible that in the future Trove will

• Be the main website for listed buildings & scheduled monuments, with the HES portal shut down -> Trove (A)
• Replace Dictionary of Scottish Architects, for which WD has properties Dictionary of Scottish Architects ID (P5308) (people) and Dictionary of Scottish Architects building ID (P7630) (buildings) (and is missing a property for Practices), hence:

(G) DCA Person

(H) DCA Building

(I) DCA Practice

• Replace the Buildings at Risk website, corresponds with Scottish Buildings at Risk ID (P11091), hence

(J) BaR Building

I lean strongly to distinct properties for each of the distinct datasets WD will point to, irrespective of their all being hosted on a single website.

The chief reason for this is that 4 of the foreseeable datasets - (A) Designations, (B) Places, (C) DCA Building and (D) BaR Building all largely cover single real-world objects (a building or structure) which corresponds to a single WD item.

If a single property is used to represent all classes of Trove data for the building, then reporting becomes a right pain in the arse:

• To ascertain which buildings are or are not on the Buildings at Risk register, or are or are not covered by DSA, the user will have to parse the contents of the single Trove property statement to ascertain whether or not the ID contains /BAR/ or /DCA/. That makes the SPARQL more unwieldy and the report slower.
• To count the number of Listings, or Canmores, or BaRs, or DCAs, will also involve analysis of the property statement content, rather than a (COUNT(?Pxxx) as ?n) or a (COUNT(DISTINCT(?Pxxx)) as ?n)

The second reason is that all of the IDs have wide currency outside Trove and WD. To have to string-slice WD data to get an output from WD which corresponds with the real-world handing of these IDs (i.e. "place/12345" -> "12345") seems absurd. The ID is LB123 or (Canmore) 12345. The ID is not "designation/LB123" nor is it "places/12345". WD should store the ID, and not conflate the ID with the route to the record for the thing on Trove merely for the dubious convenience of having a single property in WD.

I don't see any real advantage at all in a single property.

So right now I'd be inclined to point Canmore ID (P718) at trove/places. When the HES portal is knocked on the head, point Historic Environment Scotland ID (P709) at trove/designations. Ditto for DCA and BAR properties when their time comes.

I don't foresee WD deciding to point at trove/objects, trove/images or trove/archives

I see value in pointing at the thesauruses, but if so would prefer a distinct property for each of the four distinct thesauruses."  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) at 12:28 30 May 2025 (UTC).

• IMO Tagishsimon makes a lot of sense in what he writes above. I'd also add (i) that if Trove can have up to 4 separate entries for the same building across its different databases, it's worth keeping those handled by different properties if we want constraint checking to be able to pick up potential duplicates; (ii) thesauruses apply to fundamentally different things than place registers (and are extremely valuable for ontology); (iii) it's much easier to work on completeness if small datasets (eg small thesauruses) are treated separately, and not subsumed in with the data from huge registers of places. Jheald (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jheald @Vicarage Hi folks, just commenting to say that I'm mid-email in contacting HES about trove.scot, following a chat I had with a HES staff member at a conference yesterday. Been wondering how we can deal with this, glad to have found the conversation here. As ever please do drop me an email through my user page or leave me a talk page message if there's anything with which I can help. Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good luck. Probably best to provide updates at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/trove.scot_ID rather than clutter here. Vicarage (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode in items

[edit]

I do not know who is personally responsible for this step, but I wanted to thank them for the final completion. The color set in the dark mode is pleasant, and editing is easy and unproblematic. No bugs found so far. Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ve forwarded this feedback to the rest of the dev team ☺️ Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks a lot to the team. Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to make complex constraints?

[edit]

Have some issues on platform (P400) that needs solving Trade (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created some rules in the past, hopefully I can help. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You see the none-of constraint (Q52558054) against personal computer (Q16338)? Could you make it so it does NOT apply when used as a qualifier on properties whose instance of (P31) is Wikidata property for properties that uses personal computer (PC) as an platform (Q134611548) Trade (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me you can use a constraint scope (P4680) to only apply that constraint when used as main value. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but not all properties use personal computer as a platform so i dont know if we want it to be universal Trade (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Complex constraint cannot suppress a built-in one. We can only remove the constraint altogether, and "replace" it with a complex one. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what im looking for Trade (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the query you are looking for:

SELECT ?item ?p ?statement ?value WHERE {
  ?statement pq:P400 wd:Q16338; wikibase:rank ?rank .
  ?item ?p ?statement .
  ?statement ?ps ?value .
  ?p ^wikibase:claim ?property .
  ?property wikibase:statementProperty ?ps .
  MINUS { ?property wdt:P31 wd:Q134611548 } .
}

Try it!

--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing massive duplication of items that are instances of Scholarly article

[edit]

I've noticed that we seem to have a high level of duplication in items that are instances of scholarly article (Q13442814) and thought I'd spend a little time looking into where they are mainly coming from, to which end I cobbled together this unlovely python script. It is driven by the recent changes database table, so examines item creations in the preceding 28 days (I gather).

It has written a table of results at User:William_Avery/ScholarlyDuplicates/202405. Unfortunately, the page is rather big, and not particularly suited to mobile devices; be patient while it loads.

I consider that an item is a duplicate creation if it has a value of DOI (P356) or PubMed publication ID (P698) that is currently found on a pre-existing item. If there were two such pre-existing items, two rows are output to the table, one for each item that was duplicated. There are sometimes more that two; for instance, Autophagy and apoptosis: parent-of-origin genome-dependent mechanisms of cellular self-destruction (Q134483339) duplicates unique identifiers found on seven pre-existing items. Other columns in the table show the user that created the item and the timestamp at creation, along with one of the properties that is a duplicated and the property's value.

It's clear from the output that most of the items involved are coming from bots, which are currently producing them at a rate that far outstrips the capability of human users to clean them up. William Avery (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@William Avery: thanks for noticing! It seems an issue with @Reinheitsgebot: creating new duplicates, I blocked it for a month hoping it is solved in the meanwhile by @Magnus Manske:. Epìdosis 22:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@William Avery, Epìdosis: This looks like a consequence of the WDQS graph split - I expect the bot is querying the main graph, not the scholarly graph. Also notice that the duplicated DOI is *not* showing up as a duplicate in the UI - i.e. the constraint check is failing. I count 9 duplicates of the mentioned article now - in regular search enter "haswbstatement:P356=10.1098/RSOB.140027" to see them. Do wikidata constraint checks depend on WDQS? @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), DCausse (WMF), Sannita (WMF), GLederrey (WMF), ABaso (WMF): it looks like there's some more work needed here relative to the graph split! ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still seeing a constraint violation on Q134553728. I don't see it on the duplicates Q134526874/Q121306465, but I do see it on Q134430818/Q124852937. Many of the Reinheitsgebot creations have now been merged by User:Mahir256, using Quickstatements. I am pinging, as @Daniel Mietchen:, as Research Bot also seems to have been affected by this issue. William Avery (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd - now Formal Institutional Change and Informal Institutional Persistence: The Case of Dutch Provinces Implementing the Spatial Planning Act (Q134526874) is showing the constraint violation for duplicate DOI for me. I thought the UI showed those violations right away but maybe there's some caching going on? So maybe the constraint system is ok after all (except for delays?). Anyway thanks @Mahir256: for the merges, I think that is exactly what is needed. Please let us know if more help is needed on this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have deactivated what I believe is the source of the issue. Please unblock Reinheitsgebot again. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnus Manske: thanks very much! I unblocked it now. Epìdosis 13:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change statements on multiple items

[edit]

I want to migrate all statements that use Formula One race weekend (Q2705092) for the property sport (P641). (It should be Formula One (Q1968).)

Is there a quicker way than doing it by hand? Fallen Sheep (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand how to do queries and batch edit lines, you can create files like

-Q42|P641|Q2705092

Q42|P641|Q1968

and upload them to https://quickstatements.toolforge.org Vicarage (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, @Vicarage! I will look into that. Was curious about that for a while, so great to finally have an opportunity to start using it. Have a great day, cheers! Fallen Sheep (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to find what item and property have the most labels/descriptions/statements/sitelinks

[edit]

I just curious what item and property have the most:

• labels (by number of languages)
• descriptions (by number of languages)
• number of statements
• number of sitelinks (item only)

Do anyone know what is it. Thanks! DinhHuy2010 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Item with the most statements: Shigella sonnei (Q6382438) (6701, [3]).
• Scholarly item with the most statements: BayGenomics: a resource of insertional mutations in mouse embryonic stem cells (Q39790431) (8345, [4]).

(If you don't care what the difference is, just take the latter.)

• Item with the most sitelinks: Template:Speedy delete (Q4847311) (873, [5]).
• Property with the most statements: instance of (P31) (219, [6]).
• Property with the most labels: ISSN-L (P7363) (415, [7]).
• Property with the most descriptions: country (P17) (125, [8]).

For items, it's not that easy because the actual number is stored nowhere and you would need to compute it for all >117M items first. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matěj Suchánek, thanks, however, what about item with the most labels and/or descriptions?

Also could it possible to generate a report on Wikidata:Database reports?

Thanks! DinhHuy2010 (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matěj Suchánek, Also what item and property have the most unique statements? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a statement unique? Suppose you mean the most properties, then GND ID (P227) has the most properties (32, [9]).

Computing this for items is, just like labels and descriptions, again unfeasible unless you can find a reasonable subset of items which definitely includes the wanted item. Maybe someone else has the necessary skills and resources to get the results for you. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a statement unique? Suppose you mean the most properties

Yes, what about item with this criteria, both in scholarly and non-scholarly items? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Item with most labels" and "Item with most descriptions" are presented on User:Mr. Ibrahem/Language statistics for items (linked from WD:DR). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected entries

[edit]

Why is the Q11734477 protected? Its irrelevant, super small entry, and it was protected by bot. Can we open this so i can add one more language? Its the same for Q207694. --Dr.Bookman (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a highly used item. QwertyZ34 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikidata:Protection_policy#Highly used items. Samoasambia ✎ 09:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Mass-editing policy

[edit]

• Wikidata:Requests for comment/Mass-editing policy
• also see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2024/09#Mass-import_policy

M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad news. Infopollution is problem everywhere. Firstly, lexeme stuff should be removed from Wikidata. Secondly, new users to not be allowed to create new items (e.g. in enwiki creation of articles is blocked for new-comers). Specially a lot of luck and success to Lydia Pintscher (WMDE). Hopefully, she and other technical specialists can save the sinking (?) ship Estopedist1 (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Attack on Pearl Harbor (Q52418)

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I noticed some obvious vandalism on [Attack on Pearl Harbor (Q52418)](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q52418).

Under "instance of", there are values like: - Miau - Tralalero Tralala - Brr Brr Patapim

These are clearly nonsensical. Also the image and 'part of' is nonsense.

Could someone take a look or revert the changes?

Thanks! EdEm009 (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I visited the history of Attack on Pearl Harbor (Q52418), picked the latest and last pre vandalism entries, did a Compare and then a Restore from the LHS. Vicarage (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I create a category item?

[edit]

Should I create a category item with only commons link or link directly to main topic item? Anonymous (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should link directly, unless that link is already taken by a Commons gallery page. Jheald (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #682

[edit]

A Software Engineer improves the software and a Staff Engineer..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a typical title for a software engineering position above senior status, without heading for a management role. Kind of a technical lead engineer. They also improve the software, but usually not anymore by cranking out much code or grinding user stories. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement only shows item number not name

[edit]

Can anybody explain where the different from (P1889) on Genghis Khan (Q720) for Temujin (Q11319370) only shows the item number, not a label? Thank you, and cheers! Fallen Sheep (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a caching issue. I resolved it by visiting https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q720?action=purge Bovlb (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Bovlb! Marking  Resolved Fallen Sheep (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb By the way can you show me how to refresh commons page? I sometimes delete Wikidata inforbox and add it again. Anonymous (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the URL already contains a "?", then add "&action=purge"; otherwise add "?action=purge". There's a confirmation page. Bovlb (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will save it somewhere then I and others will find it. Anonymous (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many wikis have purge gadgets that add a button for purging a page. Search for "purge" on the gadget tab of your preferences on Commons or Wikidata. Samoasambia ✎ 09:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked ~ synonymous articles

[edit]

de:Selbstbildung has as English synonym in the lead "self-education". On English Wikipedia, self-education redirects to en:Autodidacticism which also has that as a bold synonym in the lead. The subject of the articles also appears to be (more or less or entirely) the same. However, the English Wikipedia article does not link to the German article – only the other way around via an intentional redirect. Also, each have a mostly different set of interwikilinks.

This may be a discussion for German Wikipedia I thought but it's not just the DEWP<->ENWP link but also 5 other articles.

Moreover, this is probably not the only case. Some but not all of such cases could be identified via said to be the same as (P460)

Is there some dedicated place where such things are meant to be discussed?

The items are autodidacticism (Q207650) and self-education (Q2267590). How do you think this would best be solved – adding intentional redirects to both so all of them link to all other language versions? Merging those two items? Something else?
Prototyperspective (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't object to a merger, there may be a bit of a difference in connotation. In English, if someone is called an "autodidact" it tends to imply that they did not have significant formal education beyond (at most) secondary school and achieved, on their own, at least the equivalent of a bachelor's-level education (and typically even beyond that). I'm not sure if Selbstbildung has that connotation, and I'd be interested in hearing from a native German speaker whether it does. - Jmabel (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that may be the case but the article is about self-education in general. Self-education can also refer to that as alternative to formal education. Moreover, the article even makes it clear that it's not just that eg at This educative praxis (process) may involve, complement, or be an alternative to formal education. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging isn't an option because ja, pl, and uk wikis have articles for both. They also seem to be slightly different in focus: autodidacticism (Q207650) seems to be about the concept of self-education, whereas self-education (Q2267590) seems to be about the actual act or process of self-education. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not proposing merging as the option, I only thought and still think it would be among the options where the better one could be creating redirects and linking things accordingly
• I saw that e.g. Polish Wikipedia has two separate super short stub articles. However, these could be merged.
• Maybe the focus differs which is why I wrote (more or less or entirely) the same but possibly it only appears that way and those articles really are about the same thing. I thought it would be a different framing or focus where one puts the activity itself at the center (the process of self-education) while autodidacticism puts the concept / the literary and philosophical concept / the field into focus. But content-wise those don't really differ. Moreover, this applies to all sorts of articles which could be titled differently that would slightly change the framing or focus of the subject; when there are such articles separately then they are just merged. The only specialty here in regards to that I think is that both terms are about equally established/popular (here I think self-educations is a clearer better more general more descriptive term). For other articles where this is the case, it's often easier to select one of the terms and then put the alternatives into the lead and into redirects.

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of song and recording

[edit]

Freiheit (Q1168552) seems to be specific to Ernst Busch's 1938 recording of this 1936 song. We lack an item for the song itself, which is the topic of the linked English- and German-language Wikipedia articles (I didn't check the other two). My I presume we should have separate items for the song and for this particular recording? Also, I see that it is listed as an instance of single (Q134556), but I'm pretty certain that it was released only as part of an album of 78 RPM records (Six Songs for Democracy, of which I had a copy when I was a child; it had been my father's in the 1930s). - Jmabel (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Wikipedia articles that were used for the original creation of the item, it's pretty clearly a musical work, not a particular performance, so I've removed the performer and changed the type from single to song. Tfmorris1 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhramar Mukherjee

[edit]

Please can someone merge Bhramar Mukherjee (Q134697095) into Bhramar Mukherjee (Q65930870). They became separated when the English article was draftified a few days ago but is now back in mainspace after acceptance at AfC. Thanks. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Merged --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice that ListeriaBot is down?

[edit]

One of Wikidata's most essential tools - doesn't work since 3 June 2025, 06:00. I've also left a message on the bot's talk page. Edelseider (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha yes, I noticed too and will just wait in anticipation, as per usual. Possibly related, but I hope not, is this RFC: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Mass-editing policy. Jane023 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that looks scary! Edelseider (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you thought this could possibly be related; it's only a proposal not describing something that is now newly getting implemented and about items and revision histories anyway, not the small number of lists that the listeria updates.

Edelseider thanks for asking. I did notice a new list I've created yesterday wasn't getting updated but that's relatively normal so I didn't yet recognize that the bot is down. I think the tool is a bit underused here, I mean it has more potential than what it's used for and most lists are hard to find and not about subjects of general Internet user or Wikidata contributor interest. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: annoyingly, ListeriaBot is still not working today. That doesn't seem to bother a lot of people, but I hope Magnus Manske (talk • contribs • logs) will intervene soon. I, for one, cannot properly edit Wikidata if I do not regularly update the lists I am working on. --Edelseider (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot page asks that the issues be reported at GitHub. I did.

https://github.com/magnusmanske/listeria_rs/issues/149 Pere prlpz (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Magnus replied on his talk page that he restarted the bot, but it still doesn't update when prompted manually. It must be some reason beyond mere on/off. Edelseider (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it now did update Wikidata:List of activities done as hobby so something is or was working again. I also tried updating another list which it didn't despite having status OK but that may be because nothing changed since the last update and this may also apply to some list that you tried it for maybe. A good opportunity to mention this new list which seems to miss many items about hobbies. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is working again, and most of the time it's working right, but what I see in cawiki is that today Listeriabot is making a lot of wrong edits, randomly deleting parts of lists. Most of these errors can be solved by clicking to update the list, but not all of them, as of now. Pere prlpz (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID property links not working?

[edit]

Here is an example: hub.toolforge.org/Q841798?property=P7431 Usually they link to a page, how do I see this one? AddyLockPool (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you mean by "hub.toolforge.org/Q841798?property=P7431"

Do you mean https://hub.toolforge.org/Q841798?property=P7431 ?

Wikidata expects links in the format https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q841798#P7431 (aka Q841798#P7431). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see: basically I use this 'tool' to automatically redirect me to the URL, for example: hub.toolforge.org/Q25342?property=P1343.

I suppose in this case the property doesn't actually link anywhere, although I found that to be quite strange - like Wolfram has its own website and such, so I would expect a link to it like other Wolfram-related properties AddyLockPool (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://hub.toolforge.org/Q29175?property=P973 automatically redirects me to the first value of the statement.

what if I want to link to a specific value (preferably not based on order of entries, as this changes over time as new entries are added).

As you can see there are lots here: Q29175#P973 AddyLockPool (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Please don't start duplicate discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t add references

[edit]

I can’t add references to material how do I do it? It has changed and I have been struggling. Masai giraffe (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Link to the "material" (is it an item?). What are you attempting to do? Which button(s) are you clicking? --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help us test the new Search box: search by entity type

[edit]

Hello everyone,

A new typeahead search experience has been enabled on Test Wikidata and Beta cluster Wikidata, that suggest and return search results for different entity types.

Currently, search-terms for a Lexeme, Property, or EntitySchema: need to be prefixed with L:, P:, and E: respectively and potential matching results are shown on the Special:Search page. This should improve the search function and save you some clicks.

What has changed

• A new search dropdown menu, where an entity type can be selected.
• Typeahead suggestions available for Item, Lexeme, Property and EntitySchemas: matching and partially-matching results are shown to you and can be clicked from the dropdown.
• Will only be available in Vector 2022 skin.

What may break when deployed

• Tools, gadgets, user-scripts or workflows that rely on the previous search behaviour may no longer function correctly.
• If your search is modified by JavaScript or CSS.

Bugs, unusual behaviour, doesn’t work: Tell us! We’d love to collect your feedback about this new feature before releasing it on Wikidata in approximately 1 week (11.06.2025).
Testing can be done now on https://test.wikidata.org and https://wikidata.beta.wmflabs.org.
If you encounter any bugs or have technical questions, please reach out to us on the Phabricator ticket: phab:T321543.

Happy Searching, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you are having general discussion, but I'd not want to have it in Phabricator. I'm not keen on having to click on the search icon for the entry box to appear. I'd rather have both visible. No problem having the dropdown appear rather Special:Search when the icon is clicked. How does this meet accessibility standards? Vicarage (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new search box, it makes sense to me. I'm not sure what Vicarage is talking about, the search entry box was there from the start on test.wikidata.org for me, and it defaulted to item entity type which is exactly what I would expect. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a higher zoom level, where only the icon appears. It needs to have an entry box for high zoom levels. Zoomed out, It seems sized for the dropdown+box combination from the start, with a much bigger search box than before. Either it should always show the dropdown, or it should start smaller. I found it a distraction that I'd clicked in the box, it magically redrew with the actual input box jumping 2 inches to the right. Could the dropdown be positioned after the entry box to avoid this? Vicarage (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but I'd want the search to mirror the general Wikipedia search, where I can search in one, several or all namespaces. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of scientists?

[edit]

definitely some discussions have already been taken place about this topic, but see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q134689749. In addition, enwiki has policy that the scientist must fulfill en:WP:SIGCOV. I also know that Wikispecies is pretty fuc*ed up ( :) ) because some articles about new species has 100+ authors, and Wikispecies tries to do entry any scientist who is described a species Estopedist1 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies is not "fuc*ed up", prettily or otherwise; it is working well (with caveats not relevant to this issue) for its intended purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en:Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is usually more relevant than en:WP:SIGCOV. Peter James (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WD:N (which Estopedist1, troublingly for a Wikidata admin, badly misunderstands in the linked deletion discussion) is more relevant here than either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A scientist/academic who has authored/co-authored a scholarly article stored in Wikidata would clearly pass both:

WDN2: It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references.

WDN3: It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.

The scholarly article itself would be more than adequate as a "serious and publicly available reference" Piecesofuk (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that due to more and more complexity of science, massive co-authoring (25+ authors in one article) become usual, and then we have to resolve it in order to prevent that "random" scentists aren't included in Wikidata (not sure how Wikispecies will resolve it) Estopedist1 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in high-energy physics could easily have hundreds of coauthors. Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all the authors of papers be stored in the recently hived off scholarly article Wikidata, with cross-links to entries in this WD if they are more generally notable? I would think there are more articles than authors, given the number of articles written in an academic's career and the typical number of collaborators, so they could strive for completeness there, but we would struggle here. Similarly for books. In a federated system a book WD could contain all books and authors, but this WD would only contain notable ones. This would involve what now seems an inevitable tightening of notability, given all the concerns in the Mass Edit RFC. At least with scientists we have the Science Citation Index and Impact Factors to define notability. Vicarage (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17567 has 5000+ authors. Per e.g. user:Piecesofuk we should auto-create 5000 Q-items!!?? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 There's no need as I assume that it's referring to Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in p p Collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments (Q21558717) (opening this link might hang your browser) which already contains over 3600 author (P50) statements. If we can identify the rest, then yes, they should be added too, if they're not already in Wikidata. Piecesofuk (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not if we don't have enough information to identify them and distinguish them from other authors. I don't think creation of empty or almost empty items with no sitelinks is a good idea, particularly if those items are about living people. Even with identfiers there is sometimes no public information available, or information has been removed from the source, or some identifiers mix information about different people with the same name. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the scholarly article items are still here, it's just that they are now separated from other items for the query service. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "hundreds of authors" business is not relevant - essentially every one of those people has published at least one other paper where they are one of only a few authors, or has their name on hundreds of these "hundreds of authors" papers. The number of distinct identified researchers is always going to be significantly less than the number of articles. Scholia lists 45 million scholarly article items in Wikidata, while there are only about 6 million people (and there are probably about as many sportspeople here as researchers). Wikidata is missing a lot of researchers who really are notable in the sense of winning awards - I regularly enter people who have won research awards in physics and there is always a significant fraction missing. I agree we shouldn't be automatically creating items for these people without checking anything further, but identified people who are published researchers should not be deleted! ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the criteria should be that the individuals must be uniquely identifiable by more than just a name and the fact they are a researcher. External identifier, source providing employer, alma mater, DOB, etc. Otherwise we'll have a heap of items that cannot be uniquely identified and are useless outside of that one attached article they were part of. So long as that criteria is met, they should have an item. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to prevent duplication ideally we should not create items without IDs (such as Katherine S. Rocci (Q134609702)). However items with at least ORCID is fine since this already eliminated much possibility of duplication. GZWDer (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion surprises me. Things are of course different for vanity publishing but to my knowledge, the notability of all authors of “real” academic papers has never been seriously questioned. --Emu (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Emu: are we able to very roughly estimate how many real academic papers exist and how many authors? If a saw a news that some articles have 10k+ authors, I am bit worried ... And very well said @Peter James. If simple Google search doesn't give enough information to identify scientists and distinguish them from other authors, then we should delete such item and substitute it with author name string (P2093), see e.g. Q114066683 Estopedist1 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is that if we have two such authors, whose QIDs are different, and both have the name "John Doe", we should delete both QIDs from each of the items about the papers they authored, and replace them with the string "John Doe"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your lack of response as a "yes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 I get where you are coming from but your “Google search” heuristic seems highly dangerous: If information isn’t easily obtainable there’s actually more reason to keep in in Wikidata not less. Also scientists are generally relatively easy to distinguish (because they are linked to articles and those articles generally stay in a field that keeps getting more and more niche), at least compared to the people I generally work on. --Emu (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"how many real academic papers exist and how many authors" - See Property_talk:P6366, the Open Academic Graph contains 254 million articles. This may likely cover 50%-100% papers ever published in the world. This means Wikidata covered 8%-18% of all papers ever published. The number of total different authors may be 200-500 million. GZWDer (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal conclusion: in order to save Wikidata and Wikispecies (don’t forget to look Mass-editing policy) from being cluttered, we have to apply en:Wikipedia:Notability (academics). And bot-generation of scientists (e.g. related to user:GZWDer and user:Magnus Manske) should be stopped, because bots are currently unable to apply en:Wikipedia:Notability (academics).--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to this opinion but it’s certainly not consensus and especially not what WD:N is saying. --Emu (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is not Wikipedia and items for researchers are useful for many purposes (e.g. they are linked to alma maters, employers, doctoral advisors; and used for generate Scholia profile). What is required is such item must be clearly distinguishable (not be conflated with any other people with same name). ORCID will serve this purpose. GZWDer (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So a scientist who does not meet en.Wikpedia's notability criteria, but who has articles on, say, the German, Arabic and Bengalli Wikipedias, should not have a Wikidata item? That's certainly an interesting position to take... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Events database

[edit]

Hello,

I am new to this site and am poorly familiar with it. I am inquiring about posdibility of building a database of events, with each event having answers to "Who, where, why, when, what, how". For example:

• who = mr donald trump
• where = white house
• what = inauguration
• why = after election
• when = jan 24, 2025

Noting that at Wikinews each news article has the 5Ws written clearly in each paragraph so I am wondering if it can be added to here.

A few questions:

• Is it possible to do this here at Wikidata with making a new item for the event, which links them all together?

• What to do with items which are text descriptions if they do not have wikilink? For example, "researchers found a new species when processing a park footage" does not have a clear item to link for "why".

• Possibility to add one or more paragraph comments - I guess not possible

• Examples, if this was already done before

• Possibility of linking both to Wikipedia and Wikinews pages, if both exist

• Whether ultra local events are in scope, such as local car crashes

• Whether ok to include original reporting

• Possibility to view recently added or recent dates current events and using a Wikifunction to generate a page about it with list of the 5Ws on it with links to Wikipedia.
• https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#Proposal_3:_build_a_5W+H_database_with_Wikinews_and_Wikidata has a few context

Thanks. Gryllida 21:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check second inauguration of Donald Trump (Q126616223). Ainali (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is too complicated. It says who, where, when, and a bunch of technical information. How does a newbie use this? Say, I wanted to add that "Mr Trump" (who) "dies" (what) "today" (when) in a "plane crash" (how) "because of unknown reason" (why) in "California" (where). Could you give me an example how this can be added? Thanks. :) Regards, -- Gryllida 14:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Holly (Q5977). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approval process

[edit]

Hello! I have created the item Q134711788, which is a registered SEO and digital marketing agency from Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would like to complete the necessary statements (instance of, official website, location, etc.) but currently don’t have enough editing privileges.

Could someone please help add the following properties, or guide me on how to speed up the approval process?

Thank you in advance! Puna digital (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Puna digital The item doesn’t seem to pass our notability criteria and will probably be deleted in the short future. --Emu (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Emu says, this item is likely to be deleted soon, but you might find it helpful to read User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted. Bovlb (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with setting docs pages & developer of Wikimedia tools

[edit]

There is substantial data on Wikimedia software in Wikidata. There could be more of it and it could be of relatively high usefulness to aggregate such data on WD². See Wikidata:List of Wikimedia tools with Wikidata item. Next to the issue of a large gap of missing items, there are two issues when creating such items:

• The developer usually is a Wikimedia user but one can't link to Wikimedia user pages or name such in developer (P178) and creating a new item for the person may not be the best approach or if it would be, it would make creating tool items a lot of hassle – asked about it at A way to just link a Wikimedia user page for W tools
• Often, the docs are on a user subpage. Maybe something should be done about that e.g. by mass-moving such pages to a proper nonuser namespace. However, what about allowing user-subpages to be linked in the interwiki links of items if those are instances of Wikimedia tool or any subclass thereof? For example, graphDataImport (Q134713849) can't link to the docs page on Commons and the item for en:Wikipedia:reFill only links to the English and German Wikipedia docs pages because on other language version the docs are on some user page that can't be linked there.

² (this data could then for example be used by other sites that make it easy to find tools of interest, or lists by which one can find tools in a preferred programming language, or better enable people to locate docs) Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective Why is graphDataImport (Q134713849) even notable per WD:N? --Emu (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all significant Wikimedia tools are notable, especially when there are millions of items that, unlike items for Wikimedia tools, nobody uses/is likely to use. In any case, that page has 1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on so that's part of the subject discussed here as the pages are often in userspace. Good question though. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It fulfills a structural need". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which items are made more useful? --Emu (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that required? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it’s technically just an example, but if we don’t stick to this requirement, “structural need” is devoid of any actual meaning, resulting in the de facto end of notability criteria. Which, if memory serves, seems to be pretty much your goal. --Emu (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One could for example specify exceptions to that policy and/or modify that policy accordingly and/or specify that structural need is by default there for Wikimedia-related items; I think that which is the subject of this thread would be the better route for how these items are within scope: 1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on… where one could specify that for Wikimedia tools, user-pages (and/or the source code?) would suffice or enable these to be linked as sitelinks as suggested here. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that we should make special exceptions for Wikimedia-related stuff, see User:Emu/Notability#Wikimedia-related_stuff for some older discussions. --Emu (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement.

"Which, if memory serves, seems to be pretty much your goal." I hope you are able to get help with your memory problems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, which “structural need” are you thinking of anyway? Structure of what? Need what for? --Emu (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikimedia tool template that includes links in statements using user manual URL (P2078)/described at URL (P973) could be a work-around for the lack of sitelinks. As for developer (P178), I think creating an item for the developer(s) would be a good idea, but if you really don't want to create items for them how about using unknown value and then qualify the statement with a link to their user-page? M2Ys4U (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those are good ideas – which qualifier could be used for that? A Wikimedia tool template what do you mean by that? That it would suggest these two/either of the two properties to be filled when entering instance of: Wikimedia tool? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For author, we usually use somevalue + Wikimedia username (P4174) as qualifier - this is how Commons handle Wikimedians as author. GZWDer (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query service problems

[edit]

I currently experience a massive amount of simple queries they do not give complete or no results. Running the same request some seconds later gives correct results. Does anyone else have the same problem? A tool I run since two years never experienced such problems. GPSLeo (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had this problem yesterday for this query which shows a list of WikiProjects https://w.wiki/E8b3 It showed no results unless I removed line FILTER((LANG(?mainSubjectLabel)) = "en") (which results in the column having lots of text due to the labels for many languages). However, after retrying again some time later it worked. The listeria bot issue described in a section a bit above could also be related to this. A list it updated first was very incomplete but later the full list was added but it seems to cause some problems at other lists. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be ongoing maintenance: phab:T386098? "Telemetry" shows an anomaly on one of the hosts (possibly full reload): [10]. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar problem (June 4th) as well on a niche SPARQL query. Would you mind explaining what to look for on either of those links to check when when the "full reload" is finished (if that's indeed the solution)? Tæppa (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look for wdqs1022 on [11]. Compared to the other nodes, it currently holds ~50% of non-scholarly Wikidata. Based on the progress (+10% in 12 hours), it will probably take a few days to be fully reloaded.

This is just my hypothesis. But if a host is being reloaded (confirmed by [12]), then it's busy reloading and thus queries are more likely to timeout. And since it's being reloaded, it doesn't hold all data, thus the results may be incomplete. Users report either. I wonder why a reloaded node is reachable by users, though. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For https://query.wikidata.org/sparql API queries, I'm seeing 60s timeouts, then if I re-run seconds later, they complete in 30s. Perhaps I'm getting different nodes each time. Annoying as I'm restructuring my system to reduce query time at present. Vicarage (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SSSIs in Scotland - when are the site & the SSSI different items?

[edit]

Hi folks - hoping someone can advise. I'm doing some work around protected areas in Scotland, at the moment, I'm working specifically on SSSIs (notes on this are on my userpage). In importing the identifiers from NatureScot, I've come across a small number where I'm unsure if the SSSI and the site should be separate entitities. The person that I'd normally ask is no longer on Wikidata, I've had a look in WikiProjects but haven't been able to find the answer.

Example - Q41214 and Q134715256 - should these be two separate items, or merged, or linked? Is the mountain a separate entity to the SSSI?

I'd checked for dupes before importing, reconciling against both the NatureScot ID and label, and thought that I'd eliminated as much chance of duping as possible, but in checking the import I'm now finding a few that might be dupes, so I'd like to clean them up. However, I'm now wondering if they'd be better kept separate. Signposting to any guidance would be appreciated! Lirazelf (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge them. Nearly always on WD we have a named location that has SSSI properties. I'd ensure the merged item's area was given a caveat saying it was the SSSI's measure Vicarage (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah, great, thanks @Vicarage! So area > value in hectares > qualifier of applies to part / SSSI, plus the reference? Lirazelf (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I would merge them, as Beinn an Lochain SSSI (Q134715256) also contains Stob an Eas (Q7617764). Peter James (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hadn’t clocked that, thanks. Similar issues with an island in Loch Lomond, one SSSI contains 2 islands (seems separate makes sense), one is mostly just the island but seems to also contain some of the water around it. Much case by case basis! Lirazelf (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vouch – Creative Freelance Gig Platform Powered by Trusted Referrals

[edit]

I’m proposing a new Wikidata item for Vouch, a digital platform that facilitates creative freelance hiring through a trusted referral model. Vouch connects gig posters with creatives via introductions from vetted industry connectors, streamlining discovery and reducing hiring risk.

The item would include: instance of (P31) → online marketplace (Q105470145) main subject (P921) → creative freelancing (Q210167) official website (P856) → https://vouch-app.com headquarters location (P159) → New York City (Q60) country (P17) → United States of America (Q30) inception (P571) → 2023 developer (P178) → Vouch App Inc.

I’d appreciate input on appropriate item modeling, especially around referral-based platforms or marketplaces driven by social trust mechanisms.

Diminovakov (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to convince us that it passes our Wikidata:Notability criteria. As what seems a self-promotional item, I don't think it does. Vicarage (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback here, will circle back once we have a bit more public mentions in the coming weeks/months. Excited to bring visibility to a platform built for largely underserved audiences. Diminovakov (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to read User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted. Bovlb (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tool to depicts on commons

[edit]

is there already a tool that lets users go from beer (Q44) to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=haswbstatement:P180=Q44 ? RoyZuo (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of. User:Stevenliuyi has a userscript called Commons Depicts, but the tool portion of it doesn't seem to be working atm. If you copy the text from User:Stevenliuyi/depicts.js to your common.js and change the link to return a link to the Commons search you will effectively have what you were looking for. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with give some knowledge.

[edit]

I want create wikidata item. My item about a musical artist. I have two news source and spotify,IMDb, Youtube artist Channel.My question is Can I create this wikidata item? Ranimita (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to read User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted.

Also please don't bombard random people and noticeboards across random projects with the same question about Wikidata. Bovlb (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to query pageviews data?

[edit]

For example, it would be useful to have a column about number of subreddit subscribers and the number of pageviews the last x days (even better would be having a small graphic next to it showing the chart like in the Wikipedia app) in this list: Wikidata:List of Linux distributions.

Then one could sort by them and it's generally interesting. Here is a pretty popular website showing distros by clicks on that website so I think it would be really useful to have an alternative to it with other and actually more data: https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs in filter-watchlist-languages.js

[edit]

I think User:Lectrician1/filter-watchlist-languages.js is one of the absolutely most useful tools for Wikidata.

It allows you to filter out languages you don't understand from your Watchlist which makes it much more managable, overseeable, and time-efficient, saving lots of precious volunteer time you can use for actually contributing to Wikidata and making it less exhausting to quickly check the Watchlist.

It's also described as Filters your watchlist to show changes to labels, descriptions, and aliases that are in specific languages.

However, it got several problems that I outlined on its talk page.

• User:Lectrician1 seems more or less inactive and hasn't replied to the talk page issues. Another problem is that there is no documentation page for the tool, just the js page.
• Could somebody please improve the script, mainly fix the two key issues of it hiding changes of one of the specified languages and the issue of it not hiding changes of languages not specified there?

I think this functionality is very valuable to nearly all Wikidata contributors and I even think it should be some native Watchlist functionality. Given that it at least currently isn't, I think it would be of high priority to fix those issues. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

useful claims that are formally incorrect

[edit]

What to do with claims that capture some important snippet of information in a clearly interpretable way, though not strictly conforming to the definition of the property that’s being used, like

(the specific apple tree genotype Idared has Jonathan as its direct ancestor) where child (P40) is defined as only for Homo sapiens? (People are deleting such claims as supposedly “obvious mistakes”.) Is there (shouldn’t there?) be a rule against deletions just for reasons of form? Is it an “obvious mistake” to enter such information before the specific case has been discussed? There is a lot of such improperly stored, but useful information on Wikidata that can be converted into a more suitable form more or less easily. It seems wrong to just delete it instead of requiring people to find a more productive solution. Cartoffel (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if you want to broaden the scope of a property you start a discussion on its Talk page, perhaps others can suggest a more suitable property that could be used/broadened. Or discuss on the relevant Project (though far too many are moribund). But its unwise to start adding data that has blatant constraint violations, and the relation between 2 species or cultivars is certainly not that of a child. Vicarage (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember is that "child" and "direct ancestor" may make (metaphorical) sense in English, a translation in another language may make the claim seem like gibberish.

In this case, we have hybrid of (P1531). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]