On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2025/06.
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.
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]
@Jmabel: That is absolutely a citeable source that can and should be used, following the rules for "Adding a source to a statement" at Help:Sources#Adding_a_source_to_a_statement. The tricky bit is how to sensibly model the item for the source, which largely depends on how precise you want to get with it (e.g. is it sufficient to cite the exhibit as a whole, or do you want the source to be the specific label?) But as long as the reference provides enough information for someone else to theoretically verify that this source really does make the claim, then the specific modelling of the source item doesn't really matter that much right now: it can be extended or tidied up separately later. Oravrattas (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Often these texts are used in this form or a revised one in the corresponding exhibition catalogue, so this could also be a possibility to cite something. --Dorades (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a catalog (which would have been straightforward to cite). I think it's just wall text for the permanent exhibits. I took a photo of it, but that seems an odd thing to upload to Commons, we don't usually host those (even though it isn't a copyright issue, because it is below the threshold of originality). Again: I don't even know if they are right, but I would assume they are at least as worth citing as some random Commons user.
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]
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]
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, 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]
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?
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
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]
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]
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]
I don't know how often the list is supposed to be auto-updated as I could not see this config there but the last update by the listeriabot there has been 16 June 2024.
Another thing: it works again but did remove items from some but not all lists it updated. Hopefully, it will soon be fully functional again so that it can retrieve all items so as to not remove items from lists that shouldn't be removed. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About autoupdate: My experience in cawiki is that it doesn't autoupdate often, but usually it updates quite fast when you click "manually update list". However, I clicked it in your list and it hasn't still worked.
It stopped working here: [10]. It won't work without transcluding the template. I guess the reason was to prevent it showing the There is no consensus to use Template:Wikidata list in articles. error message in the only article using the template. The opening banner can be removed as it has no effect. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:41, 9 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]
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.
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]
Hello @Vicarage, could you please take a screenshot of your issue and upload to the Phabricator ticket? Is the issue that when the magnifying glass icon is clicked and the new search box is displayed, the dropdown box of entity types is 'off your screen' to the left? Thanks - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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. Q114066683Estopedist1 (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 edits16:36, 5 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]
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]
Agree. Also somebody/some org/team really should work on the scalability issues of Wikidata. It won't be very useful if it won't be able to get at least as large as other popular databases. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 9 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 edits08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
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.
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, -- Gryllida14:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 [12]. 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 [13]), 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?
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, 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
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
Wikipedia Android App Top ReadOn the right is how the Wikipedia Android app's top read of the day looks like. There you can see a small graphic showing the pageviews trend as well as the pageviews number. It would be great if making pageviews queryable and rendering a chart image of them was made possible so that one could have a pageviews column in tables like the example one above. This would be really useful and would find many applications. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
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.
The parent/child relationship is between 2 individuals. And its use is fine for racehorses like Shergar (Q2739031), so its not just homo sapiens. But that's very different from claims about classes like cultivars of apples, even not considering fiddly detail like diploid or tripolid cultivars. I'd ask Wikispecies for modelling advice. Vicarage (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there!! I was wondering if there would be some way of adding the "In other projects" sidebar to my userpage so users can easily find me across projects. And in case this is currently not supported, where should I propose it's implementation? Thanks!! It's moon (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware this only works for Wikipedia sites. My request is about linking to other projects such as Commons or Meta. When adding [[commons:User:It's moon]] it behaves as a link (commons:User:It's moon) but doesn't add the "In other projects" sidebar, nor adds Commons as another language. It's moon (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could not save due to an error – The entity is too big. The maximum allowed entity size is 2.93 MB.
The entity is too big. The maximum allowed entity size is 2.93 MB.
The entity is too big. The maximum allowed entity size is 2.93 MB.
How can this be solved? I think this data is more useful than lots of other things in that item. Maybe all those many values in child astronomical body (P398) could be moved out somehow, e.g. by moving them to a separate item or by just setting parent astronomical body (rather associated star or sth like it). I think also in general items would need to get a list of links to queries that are relevant for the item type, in this case e.g. a button that when clicked showed all the 'child astronomical bodies' of the item. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It really needs an accessible button like "showed all 'child astronomical bodies' of this item" for items that are an instance of a subclass of star (Q523). Not all users know all relevant properties and how to quickly query for them for all types of items. Another example where this would be useful are items on TV series where instead of having the episode items on the series item, there is a button to view all episode items. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For other readers of that thread: relateditems is a gadget that can be enabled in the preferences. Thanks, forgot how it was called and didn't use it in a while – I think it would best be
enabled by default (not hidden in a long list of preferences that the most active registered logged-in contributors change)
change the title or add sth to it because "show derived statements" is quite unclear
for every derived statements box enable the user to get the search link and/or sparql (some button for each box) to get these so that this can be used or adjusted as needed
some of the boxes can contain a large number of items; instead showing very many of these, cut the box after some and also show other types of derived statements – for example free software (Q341) shows only a long list of items that are an instance of it but not other kinds of relation such as items that have it as main subject (P921); if the relation is not on the first page one is out of luck and would have to think of some potential relation and then manually craft some query (e.g. finding forks of a free software using based on (P144))
Currently over 1.4 million gravitationally bound objects catalogued [14], almost all of them asteroids. 471 claims for child objects of the Sol with the sole classification of asteroid is actually misleading, which is an argument for getting rid of them. Infrastruktur (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled why you want to add a 4 year old audio recording of a wikipedia article to anywhere, let alone WD. Surely there are modern text-to-speech systems that could trivially reproduce audio to the required quality level on demand, and always be current? Vicarage (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see somebody sharing this view. The only difference is that 4 years is not that much to me, especially for an article that doesn't change that quickly in terms of new events or changes in humanity's understanding as the example article. As asked about here in regards to implementation, I think the qualifier about the version date of the audio's article should always be set for all spoken text audio items (via QuickStatements somehow). The problem for now is less 4 year old audios in Wikidata items to my mind though but 20 years old audios in Wikipedia articles. Also I started this new WikiProject to do more or less exactly what you described but it's stalled due to a lack of participants, if you'd like to make an impact, you could – millions of people listen to audio podcasts daily. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if, as I assume, you are merely providing a link to the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-Sun.ogg stored somewhere in commons, and not uploading it anew, why is WD triggering a size warning? There doesn't seem to be a constraint for it, and why would WD care about the size of a file stored elsewhere. Vicarage (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikidata’s policy on multiple accounts, operating undisclosed multiple accounts are not allowed and are considered illegitimate if caught. But can you explain on why is this policy enforced on Wikidata? Why these accounts must be publicly declared, and the userpages of the alternate accounts must link back to the main account in an obvious fashion? What is the reason of disclosure though and above? Thank you for answering this. 2600:387:F:6118:0:0:0:623:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the week leading up to 2025-06-10. Missed the previous one? See issue #682. Help with Translations.
Discussions
Open request for adminship: Coinhoe - RfP scheduled to end after 10 June 2025 23:49 (UTC)
Events
Upcoming events: New Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group project series! We have our next LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group event series on the Wikidata Graph Split project. Our second event will be a conversation with Daniel Mietchen and Lane Rasberry about Scholia, the Wikidata frontend which generates and presents scholarly profiles based on WikiCite content. They'll speak to Scholia's current state and roadmap, with consideration for the recent Wikidata graph split. Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 9am PT/ 12pm ET/ 16:00 UTC / 6pm CEST. More info and Zoom links: project page.
GLAM:Memory of the World Report: Hannah Drummen at UNESCO, alongside data expert Martin, has completed a structured dataset of 496 International Register items, ready for bulk upload to Wikidata in June, with an aim to enhance accessibility and define best practices for future updates.
Wikidata QID updates to BHL catalogue: The BHL Lead Developer, Mike Lichtenberg, is ensuring periodic Wikidata Qid refreshes in the BHL Catalogue, with the working group advising a downloadable post-refresh report for OpenRefine integration, to be sent to the BHL Metacat group for reconciliation by Siobhan or other Wikidata editors.
Wikidata training & Datathon in Indonesia: Wikimedia Indonesia hosts WikiLatih Wikidata training to enhance skills in editing Indonesian cultural heritage data on Wikidata, while Datathon challenges participants to make the most edits on museum-related topics in Indonesia.
Papers
Wikidata for Botanists: Benefits of collaborating and sharing Linked Open Data By von Mering et al., (2025) - This paper explores Wikidata as a multilingual open knowledge base for botany, highlighting its role in connecting botanical information across sources, and calling on the botanical community to enhance its content.
CS-KG 2.0: A Large-scale Knowledge Graph of Computer Science By Dessí et al., (2025) - This paper introduces CS-KG 2.0, an advanced AI-powered knowledge graph built from 15 million research papers, designed to enhance scientific exploration by structuring and interconnecting vast amounts of computer science literature.
Videos
Using the Wiki List tool - GoogleSheet with formulae for retrieving Wikidata values and writing QuickStatements commands.
Wikidata Phonemes This is the web application developed specifically for Wikidata IOLab. In here you can add phonemes to a whole bunch of languages, basing your work on the work that the brazilian students of their national olympiad did while editing Wikipedia.
Should I watch this? is a tool that helps users decide whether a movie or show is worth watching.
WikiProject highlights: Names/Belarusian - This WikiProject aims to add structured and linguistic data to Wikidata to enable the study of people's names across all time periods, regions, and languages.
Mobile editing of statements: We are doing initial development focusing on technical investigations and basic UI elements (phab:T394292, phab:T394886)
Lexemes: We are looking into a rare error when trying to do undo certain Lexeme edits (phab:T392372)
Watchlist/Recent changes on Wikipedia: We continued working on showing labels instead of IDs in the edit summaries of Wikidata changes that are shown in the watchlist and recent changes of Wikipedia and co (phab:T388685)
Wikibase REST API: Finishing touches on simple search (phab:T383126)
Query Service UI: Added experimental popup to point people running very simple queries to other available access methods (phab:T391264)
I am interested in using automated tools here on wikidata. I have written some programs to query wikidata, and I am interested in running something that scrapes geni and creates wikidata items or links the profiles on the pages. Is this kind of editing allowed without going through any kind of special approval process? Immanuelle (talk) 22:19, 10 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)
