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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit

Vocaloid modeling

[edit]

I was speaking with Moebeus about the subject and from the way he responded it didn't sounded like WD had any modeling in place on how to handle Vocaloid music.

Any suggestions how the items should be done?--Trade (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add some context: In a Vocaloid song there are at least four performers involved. The Vocaloid-P, the Vocaloid voicebank used to make the music and the character who represents the voicebank and the VA behind the voicebank itself. Question is how should these three entities be modeled into the item? --Trade (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Vocaloid songs are performed by fictional characters, the characters themselves should be credited as the singers.(see Tell Your World EP (Q11250586).) Conversely, it would be incorrect to credit the voice actors as the performers, as they are not the ones actually singing; their voices are simply sampled to create the characters' vocals. Given that Vocaloid songs are often entirely written, composed, arranged, and produced by Vocaloid producers (Vocaloid-Ps), I believe they should also be credited as performers. Afaz (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the circle Livetune (Q859315) and the voice actors fit into this? Trade (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the characters themselves should be credited as the singers." But the character is not currently credited as the singer. The voicebank is. Trade (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese interface shows Hatsune Miku (Q552682) as a fictional character, and p31 is also labeled as a fictional human (Q15632617). The voicebank is Hatsune Miku (Q112748598), which lists Saki Fujita (Q1066065) as the voice actor. I added Livetune (Q859315) as they were not credited as a performer. Afaz (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should use voice actor (P725) as a qualifier on performer? Trade (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not. This is because Saki Fujita (Q1066065) herself doesn’t sing the song. She is the voice provider for Hatsune Miku (Q552682), and that information is already recorded in the Q552682. Afaz (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes. Thoughts? Trade (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your change is incorrect. I don’t understand why we need to individually record the voice provider's data for each Vocaloid song. It should follow a format similar to existing databases like MusicBrainz. Afaz (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am following the scope as stated in the description of performer (P175)
Just because the voice actor weren't actively involved in the work, it's still her voice being used Trade (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the English description of that property ("actor, musician, band or other performer associated with this role or musical work") it is unhelpfully, and unnecessarily, broad. To simplify it quite a bit; the way "performer" is currently being used, it is reserved for the artist(s) named on the cover (the "release artist"). For anyone else that might be mentioned in the liner notes, like back-up singers, individual musicians of a band, recording engineers, etc. use contributor to the creative work or subject qualified with object of statement has role. Moebeus (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately performer (P175) keeps giving constraint errors when using Vocaloid voicebanks Trade (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still need to figure out whether or not to list the Voicebank or the persona Trade (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this sound reasonable to you? @Moebeus:--Trade (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the first thing about Vocaloid, all I have to offer is general advice like "look at how the streamers (Spotify, iTunes JP), large music databases like MusicBrainz, and speciality sites (vocadb.net ?) are doing it, and try not to reinvent the wheel". Oh, and not everyone involved belong in performer necessarily, contributor to the creative work or subject is your friend. Moebeus (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vocadb have a field dedicated to the vocaloid named "Vocalists". Just trying to figure out how to translate that to Wikidata Trade (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MusicBrainz links to the voicebank while every other site links to the character Trade (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Afaz. Which Miku do we list as the featured "artist"?@Afaz: --Trade (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels wrong to list the character as the value when identity of object in context (P4626) already exists to indicate that--Trade (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached to change the label for Q30 to "United States"

[edit]

The full discussion of Trying to get a consensus on English label for Q30 -- "United States of America" vs "United States" has been archived, so here's a quick summary and the results.

Summary

[edit]
  • Background: There has never been a consensus on "United States of America" or "United States" -- despite the visibility of the topic, the length of time it has been kept as "United States of America", the persistence of the reversions back to "United States of America", and the edict issued (without consensus) on the talk page.
  • Proposal: Change the label to the shorter and more commonly used "United States" over the "United States of America" on the basis that it overwhelmingly better follows Wikidata's general principles for labels:

Results

[edit]
  • Consensus has been reached to change the label for Q30 to "United States": after two weeks, from Dec 23 2024 to Jan 6 2025, eight members  Support changing the label to the original "United States" while two members  Oppose the change
  • Any other changes to the label, such as changing it again to "United States of America", should only be done after opening a new discussion for consensus. Otherwise the change will be being done without consensus.

Lorenmaxwell (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorenmaxwell Thank you for taking the time to seek and reach consensus on this matter. William Graham (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below is not part of the discussion on the Q30 label.

@Lorenmaxwell: Please stop spamming my watchlist on the English Wikipedia. Every week I get more unremovable spam on my English Wikipedia watchlist because someone "updated properties for aliases" on the United States Wikidata item. This has been going on for several years. I do not follow Wikidata items. I have NEVER added this to my watchlist. I have NEVER wanted to know, from having the Wikipedia Signpost on my watchlist, which people are updating the "United States" Wikidata item. Nobody seems willing or able to fix this. Nobody knows how to make it go away. I have tried every possible method to hide it. This is my last resort: please let me stop seeing these worthless twiddles. JPxG (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Please make it stop.
JPxG (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to do that on either your watchlist or your preferences. I don't have anything to do with your watchlist or your email preferences. Lorenmaxwell (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General relationship to Wikipedias, tagging for the renderer?

[edit]

During the discussion on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Constraints for Germanies, one side argued about the needs of "their" Wikipedia, while others claimed such measures to be tagging for the renderer, which then was declared "not a policy on Wikidata". Then there's things like string not for label in WikiProject (Q105690472), used to explicitly exclude statements for usage in a Wikipedia and string for label in WikiProject (Q105690470) for the opposite. Since I'm not that experienced in Wikidata, I would like to know more about the general mindset/attitude about this: Is Wikidata just a service for the Wikipedias or is this supposed to be an "independent" project of it's own? Is there any documentation about these kinds of things, maybe also about NPOV, conflict resolution etc.?

Please forgive me, if this is written tendentiously. I really was under the impression, that things like official names of countries or League of Nation memberships would be objective criteria, and therefore I am still a bit amazed, that this created such a conflict. --Flominator (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata was started with a key role as being a backend of facts for the infoboxes of Wikipedias, though in practice the editors of the latter are distrustful of outside projects, and takeup has been very slow. WD has grown to be a database of facts used much more widely than the Wikipedia ecosystem, though clearly its quality and comprehensiveness, while better than any rival, has big gaps. Those facts need to be globally accepted, but are still aimed at a early 21st century audience. There seems to be a lot fewer procedures (and less nitpicking) here, partly because facts are less contentious than descriptive text, and with fewer editors and a vast workspace, conflicts are rarer. But as we've seen for the Germanies, its not the facts that are a problem, as the wooly nature of labels like "country", where POV will be an issue. Vicarage (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"editors of the latter are distrustful of outside projects" This varies greatly between projects (and indeed, within them). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is on WD:N, Wikidata is its own project, which means it can have objectives that goes beyond the sole objective of being a Wikipedia backend and has its own policies. But of course serving Wikipedias is one of its main reason for being and admissibility on Wikipedia is a sufficient reason for admissibility on WD of course.
Wikidata has ways to handle conflicting viewpoints by allowing to set different statements with their own sources and ways to describe the disputes, like statement disputed by (P1310) View with SQID or statement supported by (P3680) View with SQID, for example. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you deal with when there's no agreement, on which item should be used? Would this maybe be an idea? --Flominator (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several ways, on frwiki we align with the Wikidata model and, for example, we deal with the data wanted by the community on the infobox by agregating the different values into one to avoid duplication in case of a regime change, for example. See [this link https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Infobox/Fonctions/Personne#L-515] for the lua code that handles this for fr:Modèle:Infobox Biographie2 for example. We also get the demonym/adjective from a lua function. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about P31 and P131 for English villages in parishes of same name

[edit]

In England, there are many villages within a parish of the same name.

For example, item Great Bedwyn has P31 (instance of) statements as a village and a civil parish.

  • The complexity is that 'Great Bedwyn village' (GSS code E63005235) is only a subset of the 'Great Bedwyn civil parish' (GSS code E04011723).
  • Item Tottenham House is within 'Great Bedwyn civil parish', but not 'Great Bedwyn village'.
  • Similarly, items Crofton Pumping Station and Crofton Locks are in the hamlet of Crofton which is in the 'Great Bedwyn civil parish' but not the 'Great Bedwyn village'.
    • Crofton hamlet has a wikipedia redirect page, but this does not have an associated wikidata identifier
  • Alternatively, St Mary's Church is within 'Great Bedwyn village' and so also 'Great Bedwyn civil parish'
  • Is it possible to accurately describe the relationships above using a P131 statement with a suitable qualifier?
  • I would presume that the only way to accurately describe the relationships is to have a separate wikidata item for 'Great Bedwyn village' and 'Great Bedwyn civil parish', but would this also mean that separate Wikipedia pages would be needed (even if one was a redirect page etc)

MrTAP (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that we should not be conflating two different entities in one Wikidata item, no matter how closely related, although that rule is often broken. You don't absolutely need a (redirect) Wikipedia page. If this division splits the sitelinks into two groups (because some articles are about the village and others about the parish, then you might want to look into Template:Interwiki extra (Q21286810), which would let you retain the whole list of interwiki links on the Wikipedia article. Bovlb (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most parishes are not separate items, or if separate items exist are claimed to be instances of Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920). There are a few exceptions such as Stanhope (Q428342)/Stanhope (Q24665841), a large parish with separate Commons categories for village and parish. It's the same for places in many countries; in some the terms for the administrative areas are translated to "village". There is Great Bedwyn (Q24668528) but it is mostly not used; Q995623 is used instead. There is also Crofton (Q21697119); I added a link to the redirect. Peter James (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes Great Bedwyn (Q24668528) is about the parish so you could just move the statements for the parish there but as noted we normally don't have separate items. Lucywood (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Entities

[edit]

Hello, How is that possible to receive a copy of an entity (like in json) after an entity was deleted? is there forum where can I request that data without being an admin? Thanks Ms040got (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty score

[edit]

Hi! How to specify the penalty score for a football match (Q268567, Q55659738)? Maybe we should suggest a new property for the score? Mitte27 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Special:WhatLinksHere/Q2691960 I found Q55350317#P1363 where match interval (P6887) is a qualifier for points/goal scored by (P1363). For the score I found Q4597128#P1923 but I'm not sure about that as score method (P1443) only works as a qualifier for one of the number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) qualifiers, not for the participating team (P1923). Peter James (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Mitte27 has asked about the second usage, the score — unfortunately I think this example is not viable, because there score method (P1443) is a qualifier for Nigeria men's national football team (Q181930) and Cameroon men's national football team (Q175309) values, and not a qualifier for the number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) qualifier's second value. Well very well (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Returned from archive. Well very well (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:Property proposal/Match Score was proposed in 2018; another proposal could be made but I'm unsure of the data type (part of the reason the 2018 proposal was withdrawn). Splitting the participating team (P1923) into multiple statements with different qualifiers is possible, but I would prefer multiple statements with number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) as a main value (which is allowed in the property constraints but not mentioned in the description) and participating team (P1923) and match interval (P6887) as qualifiers; there should probably be consistency so more discussion is needed. Peter James (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Myself I'd suggest something like just creating a new qualifier for participating team (P1923) — something like "number of penalty goals" ― to go along with the current number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) qualifier for the same property Well very well (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of a new page : Request for model (good name to be found)

[edit]

I think there is something to be done along the line of WD:Request a query where we try to answer the requests for someone who wants a query, but for the problems like #Penalty score just above.

Someone wants to express something, we don't have a solution, or we have.

  • Either we try to find a model with the current properties, we answer the question and we put the answer somewhere for documentation
  • Either we answer "data not really appropriate for Wikidata" and we deny the request
  • Either we suggest a model and create the necessary properties.

ADDENDUM : I forgot to mention that there is also Wikidata:WikiProject Schemas/Request an EntitySchema, which is barely used and that should fit somehow in the scheme, whether it's what I propose or not. It could be the support to document a reference model.

I think this could be a good alternative for the current "property proposal" process which is not really optimal in my view because we expect an already baked solution, and is slow and cumbersome. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for data modelling are best done in the relevant Project page if active, but so few are nowadays. Posting them here seems a good alternative, as we don't get many and it gives them visibility. A new dedicated page is just something else to poll. Perhaps it could be used for discussions that get too involved for here. Vicarage (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vicarage I'm not sure how the property proposal pages are active either these day, and the discussions are in practice very not visible because super fragmented property by property, usually invisible I think.
Proposals here are diluted into the other discussions either, and frequently justs leads to nothing, in my experiences a few years ago. It's difficult to get a proposal by going to a project because it does not imply the proposals if there is a concensus because the property proposals are actually to be made and this is a pain.
I think a page the property creators could easily poll with a list of properties to create if there is a concensus reached could be much more efficient and motivating for people with ideas, and could bring together peoples with problems to solutions to their problem without being lost in the jungle of the project with motivation loss. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone mind me and Deansfa create WikiProject Journalism here on Wikidata?

[edit]

We may work on coordinating Journalism related tasks like adding journalists(goal), determining what a notable journalist is through discussion and consensus, adding newspapers that don't exist yet. Would anyone like to help me create this Wikiproject? This is the Wikidata item for it WikiProject Journalism (Q8486805). We have 8 language Wikipedias with such Wikiprojects.

Another reason is making sure that I know what I'm adding is not suddenly gonna be deleted by deletionists. I'm not saying deletionism is bad, I'm just saying that it can often lead to chaos and wasting my time adding things that aren't notable is not worth it. Someone deleting your edits(even if they were in the wrong) is discouraging people from contributing. A Wikiproject would help new and hesitant users to add useful data while being sure they are helping. What do you think?

@Deansfa:. Are you interested to help in creating this WikiProject or do you think we should consider some things first before we start? ie. that I'm just a new user account and perhaps that I should do more edits before we create it? Journalisticape (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Journalisticape: Just to be clear, I don't care about deletionism or inclusionism and would like to be very far from those conversations. I created thousands of wikidata item about news articles (including NYT obituaries) and never had any issue with anyone. You just arrived, create one single item, and already spinning a false debate about "wow my item will be deleted". Sorry but bye! And please don't bring me on your debates. --Deansfa (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely outcome of creating another new Wikiproject is that it will get little engagement.
If you want to influence Wikidata policy it's likely better to first start to engage with existing discussions to figure out how things work over here. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Journalisticape (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to specify identifiers for mobile phones

[edit]

I've been working on adding various consumer electronics to Wikidata and many have several different identifiers to apply to them. I'm trying to figure out how to model these. Consumer devices will usually have many identifiers. For Android devices there are basically 3:

Device name - How consumers and advertising usually refers to an item. Can be imprecise and refer to a family of devices (e.g. Galaxy Tab4 10.1).

^ Easy to store in the Name of the item

Android codename - Codename used for the device to determine software compatibility (source). Commonly used to reference devices across wikis (e.g. LineageOS, postmarketOS).

^ This refers to code name (Q590490), but there's no Property for it. There is working title (P1638), but I'm unclear if I should use that as it doesn't say it applies to devices or engineering efforts.

Model number - One or more model numbers may apply to a single device name, sometimes there's multiple because of different markets or minor feature differences (e.g. color). These are commonly used to look up manufacturer specs/documentation or find the exact product when shopping online.

^ This could be product code (Q57446692) or part number (Q3879409), I think they're just different terminology for the same concept. There was a proposal to add a part_number property, but it stalled out. It be useful to have short descriptions associated with each model number.

So for any physical Android device, it will have exactly one of each of these. However, in Wikidata, I'd probably organize it such that there is 1 Device with the name, it has a codename, and then could have multiple Model Numbers that apply to it. This is how the postmarketOS wiki is organized and it works pretty well. So for example:

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Wi-Fi:

  • Android codename - matissewifi
  • Model number - SM-T530, SM-T530X

Google Pixel 3a:

  • Android codename - sargo
  • Model numbers - G020A, G020E, G020B, G020G, & G020H

I was thinking to use name (P2561) here and applies to part (P518) with code name (Q590490) & product code (Q57446692) respectively, but that doesn't seem right as those aren't really "parts" of the smartphone, right? Would the better things to do be adding these two new properties? BasilicumTree (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with "Chat Header" template

[edit]

I just edited {{Chat header}} because a class=… was shown in the browser. Not sure if it is the right fix or if the issue is more in an edit of {{Box}} however. No motivation to dig more. Any idea ? author  TomT0m / talk page 12:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RogueScholar seems to have changed Box recently in a way that affects parameter 1. Bovlb (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #662

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2025-01-13. Missed the previous one? See issue #661

Events

  • Upcoming events:
    • The next Wikidata+Wikibase office hours will take place on Wednesday, 17:00 UTC, 15th January 2025 (18:00 Berlin time) 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.
    • Join the Wikidata Training Event 2025 organised by Wikimedia Botswana UG for Wikidata enthusiasts of all levels. Starts 18 Jan 10:00am CAT (UTC+2), registration required.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Dungeon Of Knowledge - is a roguelike game with Items generated from Wikidata that lets you crawl through the Dungeon of Knowledge in a classic ASCII interface. (toot) (blog)

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • Zita Ursula Zage has joined the Software Communication team (SCoT) at Wikimedia Deutschland as an intern until the end of June 2025. Welcome Zita!
  • VIAF (cf. Q54919 and P214) underwent a relevant change of interface on January 10; the way of visualizing clusters in JSON format has changed in comparison with present OCLC documentation and e.g. http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412/viaf.json doesn't work anymore; this broke most or all Wikidata gadgets using VIAF data; in the absence of official communications from OCLC, developers are trying to understand if the new VIAF interface is stable before changing their gadgets accordingly

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • Wikidata Query Service UI: We fixed a long-standing issue with missing edge labels in graph visualisations (phab:T317702)
  • Wikibase REST API: We implemented a proof of concept for a search endpoint you can try out.
  • EntitySchemas: We’re working on language fallback for the heading on EntitySchema pages (phab:T228423)
  • Language codes: We cleaned up language codes in WikibaseLexeme after moving some of them to CLDR (phab:T352922)

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

Add properties to Mix’n’match catalogues

[edit]

Is there anybody here with catalogue editor rights who can add ‎eHLFL ID (P13079) to https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/#/catalog/3981 and add graphclasses.org ID (P13104) to https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/#/catalog/6380? D3rT!m (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

planned mass deportation of illegal immigrants under the second presidency of Donald Trump (Q131189861) item name

[edit]

Hello! In my recent editing I encountered this unusually long item title: planned mass deportation of illegal immigrants under the second presidency of Donald Trump (Q131189861). This plan has been given a title as "Operation Aurora" by Donald Trump and reliable sources. The term "Operation Aurora" also conflicts with the item Operation Aurora (Q1063139), a cyberattack from nearly twenty years ago.

Since I am unfamiliar with Wikidata, I looked into how a move would be proposed and performed, searching "move" in the search box and seeing multiple "Move" items with same or similar titles (for example: Q285547, Q3109221, Q84413313, etc.)

Given the many references and for simplicity sake (including typical naming conventions), should we change the title of Q131189861 to Operation Aurora?

Thanks for any replies or suggestions! WMrapids (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different items can have the same label on Wikidata (however the combination of label and description in a given language must be unique). I don't see the problem in having a long label for the item, though. If you do make the change, please set the current label as an alias. M2Ys4U (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a planned mass deportation of illegal immigrants under the first presidency of Donald Trump? Otherwise it seems redundant Trade (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M2Ys4U, Trade: Thanks you two! Just wanted some clarification before I went ahead with the new label.--WMrapids (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Les Gonds

[edit]

Hi, Les Gonds (Q933277) and Les Gonds (Q35715431) seem to refer to the same French commune (municipality). Can somebody have a look ? Thank you in advance for your help. SenseiAC (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Known problem: Items can't be merge since there is ceb:Les Gonds and ceb:Les Gonds (lungsod). Both articles created by bots. (A commune and its main city.) --Kolja21 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full release of the "mul" term language code on Wikidata

[edit]

Hi everyone,

Following the limited release of the “mul” term language code, we’re excited to share that the full release will be enabled by default on Tuesday, 28th January! This means that:

  • Default for all languages will now appear automatically in the Termbox
  • Bot-runs for “mul” are now allowed

Thank you to everyone who participated in the testing phase and shared feedback.

If you have questions or feedback, please do not hesitate to use the Help talk page or this Phabricator ticket.

Cheers! -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, bot-runs being allowed still means that bots are supposed to have bot approval for their tasks. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request RfC closure

[edit]

This RfC has been open for about 2.5 months and has not had activity in a month. It is holding up work on Wikidata:WikiProject Deprecate P642. Thanks! Swpb (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party opinion requested for Q64

[edit]

Many statements were recently removed from Berlin (Q64) with the reason of "without source or relevance", including the city's official social media accounts. This puts the city's page at odds with every other city I've seen globally, where official social media accounts are freely listed. Since I'm not German nor do I have any particular interest in Berlin (other than it being an item tracked by the Name Suggestion Index (Q62108705)), I'm requesting a third-party opinion on the matter. BrownCat1023 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixed bag. Some of the deleted like the twinned administrative body (P190) statements are factually wrong, and it's good that they are deleted. Others like the social media accounts are official accounts by the official portal berlin.de, so no reason to delete them. NGOgo (--> join WikiProject Nonprofits!) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the twinned administrative body (P190) statements I don't see anything wrong in the removed statements and wonder what might be "incorrect" with them. --Dorades (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored all the removed statements (noting that I am not the first person to do so). Individual statements can be discussed on the item's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edits on MediaWiki talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties

[edit]

There are at least four several-months old edit requests on MediaWiki talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties asking for an administrator to re-sort a section's properties or to integrate newly created properties into existing sort groups. The attention of an administrator would be greatly appreciated. BrownCat1023 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to get the user name of the creator of an item?

[edit]

Is there a programmatic way to get the user name of an item's creator? Jneubert (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Via API, yes. For Q131417160 see https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=xml&prop=revisions&titles=Q131417160&rvprop=user&rvlimit=1&rvdir=newer MBH 12:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artist signatures

[edit]

Hello,

Today, during an editathon, I discovered that some artists have two pictures set with signature (P109). One handwritten on a paper to sign a document, and one made on a work of art. They could be quite different. I think both are interesting information, but I don't know how to map those properly. Will it be two separated property or will it be two properties of P109 to describe the sub-type of signature?

Examples: Auguste Rodin (Q30755), Ossip Zadkine (Q160172), Pierre Puvis de Chavannes (Q216873).

Any idea welcome! Noé (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have creator's signature (P7457), so two separated properties I guess. Sorry, that is for pages that are work of art, although it is used on people pages too. Difool (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q316128 and Q15962374

[edit]

Would anyone familiar with German history be willing to look at Flag of the German Empire (Q316128) and flag of the German Empire (Q15962374)? Based on the German sitelinks on each item, I suspect there's some topic conflation in play with one item or the other. Thanks in advance. BrownCat1023 (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Q29469557 and Q7483502

[edit]

Please, merge Category:Companies of the Soviet Union (Q29469557) and Category:Companies of the Soviet Union (Q7483502). They have conflicting pages in Russian and Arabic (to be precise only Russian Wiki makes a distinction, as the Arabic pages are actually duplicates). Est. 2021 (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot be merged because of the conflicting pages. D3rT!m (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to add alt text to a photo?

[edit]

Hello. I read Wikidata:Tours/Images and Property talk:P11265 but I still don’t understand how I can find a photo in Wikidata (for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TR_Yedig%C3%B6ller_asv2021-10_img02.jpg) and add the alt text. Can anyone help please? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there way to remove one qualifier by QuickStatements?

[edit]

Special:Diff/2289095175/2299676560

I want to change criterion used (P1013)|gender (Q48277) qualifier to criterion used (P1013)|sex or gender (Q18382802) in competition class (P2094) property. I tried it by quickstatements, but I can't remove one qualifier without removing statement. If you have a bot, please change criterion used (P1013)|gender (Q48277) qualifier to criterion used (P1013)|sex or gender (Q18382802) in competition class (P2094) property to follow various sex or gender policy in sports. Sharouser (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuickStatements cannot do this indeed.
Do we talk about all of these results [1]? I do have a bot which can do such a migration. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of swapped items in multilingual sites field

[edit]

The existing Wikidata pages for Q1544332 (Central Australia Railway) and Q124334026 (Adelaide-Darwin railway line) were initiated by editor(s) unfamiliar with the two railways and who have confused them. I have made some changes to correct various errors in the two Wikidata pages but I am having difficulty in entering the correct details in the multilingual sites field, which shows the message, "The link commonswiki:Category:Central Australia Railway is already used by Item Q124334026. You may remove it from Q124334026 if it does not belong there". I have not been able to remove the information from either page.

Specifically, the correct details are:

  • (commons) Category:Adelaide-Darwin railway line needs to be on the Q1544332 (Central Australia Railway) page
  • (commons) Category:Central Australia Railway needs to be on the Q124334026 (Adelaide-Darwin railway line) page.

I have expert knowledge of this subject and I'm absolutely certain of the correctness of the terminology I have outlined.

I would appreciate someone enabling the required change or describing how I can do it (in detail, please -- I'm a novice on Wikidata). SCHolar44 (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2299771465"