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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Wikidata Telegram group
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 2019/12.

Project
chat

Lexicographical
data

Administrators'
noticeboard

Development
team

Translators'
noticeboard

Request
a query

Requests
for deletions

Requests
for comment

Bot
requests

Requests
for permissions

Property
proposal

Properties
for deletion

Partnerships
and imports

Interwiki
conflicts

Bureaucrats'
noticeboard

Membership of music groups[edit]

I notice that under Help:Modelling/General#Groups_of_objects_or_people, we have:

Property part of (P361) View with SQID is used to link an instance of an individual object to an instance of a group that contains the first object. It is not used to link to a class. The inverse of the part of (P361) property is has part (P527) View with SQID. So, for example, extending on musical group (Q215380) immediately above:

Yet, at Property_talk:P361#Bands, it was recommended that member of (P463) be used, since "it is more specific for individual humans".

Sports teams are something similar, and for some reason have their own subproperty member of sports team (P54). There are also some quite large musical groups like symphony orchestras. So should Help:Modelling/General be changed in this instance? Ghouston (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I share this frustration, I wish we could finally have a "band members" property. "member" to me implies a membership, and naturally goes with member count and members have occupation. It's not a natural fit for the looser structure of bands. And "part of" is way, way to broad. I've said it before, but Project Music has a lot to learn from the sports guys, they know what they want and then they get it done (member of sports team must have been one of the first properties ever created?). Moebeus (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have any problem with member of (P463) being used as a generic membership property. The kind of thing that it's a member of should already be apparent from the subject item, so it doesn't seem useful to me to have a different property for each case. member of sports team (P54) was indeed a very early property, and pre-dated the generic item. Ghouston (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see the inverse property - member of band, and band member. On the band page you say someone is a member, and on the person page you say he is a member of. Quakewoody (talk)
I guess that's why people prefer using "part of" and "has part". Ideally, inverse statements shouldn't be created, because they are redundant. But it's a limitation of the Wikidata software that it doesn't treat statements symmetrically. Ghouston (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
There are no plans as far as I know to change how the software works. So the question is whether the inverses are indispensable. Are they used on templates in Wikipedia, with no way to rewrite such templates? If the inverses are needed, then an inverse membership property could be created so that "part of" doesn't have to be used. Ghouston (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
E.g., at es:The_Beatles there's a template that lists the 4 main members. If you delete the members in the template and preview the result, it will display the 8 members from Wikidata instead. I notice that the 4 main members have been given preferred rank in Wikidata, which I'm not sure is for any good reason supported by Help:Ranking, and in any case is ignored by this particular template. Ghouston (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the ranking would be determined by the outcome of Wikidata:Requests for comment/Best practices for statement ranks for disappeared entities. Either all members are ranked equally, or the members remaining at the time of a bands dissolution would be given preferred rank. Ghouston (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
1/1 would support. For what it's worth, I think it's preferable to have a "member" property on the band, rather than a "member of" on the musician. After all, a band is nothing more than the sum of it's members, while Ringo Starr simply rulez; with, or without, the Beatles ;-) Moebeus (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
But what is the notable entry - the collective musicians, or the individual musician. For example, I never would have created Q66424356 if he wasn't a member of Q458561. While the Coral Reefer band wouldn't meet notability if it wasn't for Jimmy Buffett. Which is why I think the inverse would also be necessary. Quakewoody (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters. If you only need one item to hold all the information, then just create one item. On proposing an inverse "member" property, I'd suggest that this would only be auxiliary to member of (P463), and only used where it's likely to be needed by templates. It would be silly to enter all the members of National Academy of Sciences (Q270794) onto that item. The member property would have a constraint that the inverse "member of" exists, but the reverse would not apply. Ghouston (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
And I understand everything (or at least most of) what everyone is saying. But I can't help but see a situation where 'Band X' has 4 members (which is typical of the modern rock band). We create the band, and create the members, we link the members of the band to the band but we don't link the band to the members. The members could then be deleted because nothing points to them. And then, once all the members are deleted, nothing is pointing to the band. Which is why I think member of band and band member would be needed. Create the two way relationship. Quakewoody (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I still don't see why "member of band" / "band member" would be better than a generic "member of" / "member" (which may also be useful in other situations.) Ghouston (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I suppose with "member of band" you could consider making the inverses mandatory in both directions. However, I'm not sure that that would be a good idea. There may be some very large and long-lived bands, like symphony orchestras, that have had numerous notable members and you neither want to list them all on the item nor include them in infoboxes. Ghouston (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't really considered the practicality of an alternative solution, which is to use make a Lua module that can retrieve the members when processing a page for a band/other organization. I think the Commons Infobox does this kind of thing all the time. Ghouston (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • What happened to "Show derived statements"? - Jmabel (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I believe this feature requires making additional queries to Wikidata, beyond what's available to a Wikipedia page from its linked Wikidata item by default (because the API is not symmetrical on the left and right side of statements). That's why a Lua module (or Javascript in the user interface) is needed. Ghouston (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Tatyana = Tatjána = Tatiana = Tat'jana etc.? Q1317239[edit]

For me is the unification of similar sounding names suspicious, so what says the community to this? For me, Czech Tat'jana is a name on its own, similar for names in other latin scripts. --Florentyna (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's wrong and it's frustrating seeing the tedious work establishing transliterations separating the different spellings and script systems suddenly destroyed by a merge from "red editors". This is not the first time though, I think it happens because wikipedia editors want all name articles to be grouped. Which is a legitimate goal, but not necessarily how WD is/should be organized. Moebeus (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Wrote to the contributor. --Wolverène (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Another one: http://www.palabrario.com/w/index.php?title=Q20819062&diff=1082105462&oldid=prev Moebeus (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Days of the week[edit]

Hi @Infovarius: and all. I would like to get community input about the addition of different from (P1889) to differentiate between Category:Days (Q7152582) and Category:ar:Days of the week (Q31845393). The problem is that Arabic Wikipedia's ar:?????:???? on Category:Days (Q7152582) is written exactly the same as Arabic Wiktionary's wikt:ar:?????:???? on Category:ar:Days of the week (Q31845393), so, the two items appear as if they need to be merged but in fact they don't.

In other words, my question here: Is the use of different from (P1889) reserved for use on items that look similar in English only or is the use of the property extended to any two items that look similar in any language? --Meno25 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

    • I can't think of any reason to fail to add that property if there is confusion in any language that is at all widely used (which Arabic certainly is). Not sure we should do this if the confusion existed only in, say, Aranese, or Yiddish (and I say that as someone with some vocabulary in both of those). - Jmabel (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Meno25: Let me explain. Category:Days (Q7152582) is a category about concepts "day of the week", they are language-independent (and actually written in different languages in different Wikipedias). Category:ar:Days of the week (Q31845393) is about Arabic words which denotes days of the week. So there is conceptual difference between these two. In addition to Q31845393 there can be hundreds different categories about words in different languages denoting this topic: Category:en:Days of the week (Q30578972), Category:de:Days of the week (Q30578998), Category:ru:Days of the week (Q30584078)... --Infovarius (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Thank you for the explanation. I understand that the two items are about different concepts (I am a native Arabic speaker by the way.) but the problem is that both the two items appear on the projectmerge list as candidates for merging. In such cases, I usually add different from (P1889) to them to remove them from the list. (I prefer to use different from (P1889) over the whitelist as usage of the property makes it easier to track such cases using different database queries.) So, in light of the comment by Jmabel, I can see that there is no harm in readding the property to the two items. I am going to wait for any final comment by you, and if there is not, I am going to readd the property. Thank you and keep up the good work, Infovarius. --Meno25 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Meno25: should we add different from (P1889) with value=each language subcategory? --Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, @Infovarius:. I don't think that this is necessary unless there is an exact match between site links such as the case described above. Best wishes to you. --Meno25 (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

O2 structure[edit]

Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev User:Pintoch Parikan User:Cardinha00 User:zuphilip MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Kristbaum Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna ?n?s (Susannaanas)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Companies

It seems like Telefónica Europe (Q1759255) is falsely conflating the brand O2 and the company Telefónica Europe (at least going by the linked English Wikipedia page which is specifically for the brand). Would it be appropriate to split this item into two?

This company/brand seems particularly confusing to me with multiple subsidiaries all operating under the same brand name:

--SilentSpike (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it sounds like Telefónica Europe no longer exists; I'm not sure a separate item for it would be very useful. If there is something to be said about it I guess - how it relates to the existing companies, the history, etc. then maybe it should be created. Otherwise this item probably should be just limited to the brand O2. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, item Telefónica Europe (Q1759255) is conflating the brand O2 and the company Telefónica Europe and needs to be split. Note that enwiki article is covering both concepts. Telefónica Europe still exists (see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05310128), but it is no longer so significant.--Jklamo (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The item is for the company formerly called O2 plc. The English article was recently moved to "O2 (brand)", but is still about the company; other language articles are more clearly about the company, as are most statements in Q1759255 and all links to it. Peter James (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia article seems to be a bit of a mess, but my understanding is that the brand O2 is owned by a company Telefónica - a subsidiary of which (Telefónica Europe) happened to run all European branches and no longer does thanks to a restructure in 2014. This item seems to be conflating multiple concepts to me (the brand O2 which is used by multiple subsidiaries; the company O2 plc which was purchased by Telefónica; the company Telefónica Europe which is a subsidiary of Telefónica), but I'm not convinced I understand the situation enough to properly fix it. --SilentSpike (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
O2 plc was renamed to Telefonica Europe plc, and is now Telefonica O2 Holdings Ltd. The O2 brand (or at least its UK trademark) was transferred from O2 Holdings (a subsidiary of Telefonica Europe) to O2 Worldwide (a subsidiary of Telefónica, but not of Telefonica Europe) in 2015.(https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/History/1/UK00002233188) So it is currently:
and
according to Companies House and the Intellectual Property Office. https://www.telefonica.com/en/web/about_telefonica/organisation/parent-subsidiaries says "key holdings", and omits intermediate or less significant companies. Peter James (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you think WD needs to track such company shuffles and cadrilles as were so eloquently described by @Peter James:? Corporate officers do such adjustments all the time for a variety of reasons, and I don't think these hold much public interest. So I think we should track the major holdings/conglomerates and their stable/significant/distinct subsidiaries (eg Space X is very distinct from The Boring Company), but don't need to care about the minutiae of their evolutions --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Vladimir Alexiev: I'm not so concerned about capturing that detail, but since items and Wikipedia pages seem to exist for multiple regional subsidiaries it would be good to correctly capture their relation to the O2 brand. My particular interest is in having a stable item for the O2 brand itself which can be used by external projects - in this case, Name Suggestion Index (Q62108705). I'm not sure that Q1759255 (the item that has been used until now) fits that criteria since it's for Telefónica Europe specifically. --SilentSpike (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Possibly not, it was just easier to find the information (that the former O2 plc was renamed and became a subsidiary, and that an O2 trademark was still under that subsidiary but isn't now). Peter James (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing sitters in portraits[edit]

Hi everyone, I made this list of portraits with suggestions for the sitters. Anyone feels like helping out here? It's a great way to provide context. Multichill (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused: wouldn't roughly half of those still be copyrighted? - Jmabel (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Why does that matter? We're just describing paintings just like you can describe for example a (copyrighted) movie. Multichill (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I misunderstood, then. When I went to the page, it looked like what needed to be done was to fill in the images of the paintings. - Jmabel (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the word "sitter" does not seem to appear on that page outside of the page title. - Jmabel (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it's about adding who is actually in the painting so that for example we can get the portrait paintings of George Washington
One of the columns is labeled "Possible sitter" Joe, you overlooked that one.
Figured that I could do the easy cases with a robot, so did so to trim down the page. Also made a more general version at Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Portraits possible sitter if anyone is interested... Multichill (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, I did miss that. I think "Possible" threw my eye off when I scanned. - Jmabel (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Multichill: The wording at Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Portraits possible sitter is ambiguous: the title says sitter (presumably sitter (P2634)) but the prose discusses only missing main subject (P921). While a painting may have values for both properties (which may or may not be identical) the text should be clear about what specifically is being requested, so that humans and their pet bots can be more effective. -Animalparty (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: this week is the first time I heard about this sitter (P2634). In the context of a portrait with a single person on it, that person, the sitter, is the main subject (P921).
I started this topic to discus the purpose of the property. Probably best to just delete it. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Would it be possible to exclude cases when the date of the painting does not match the years of life of the perspective sitter? I removed two cases by hand, but they are probably going to return with the next bot update.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
You could try fiddle around a bit with the SPARQL query? Probably easier to just create the items for the missing people in the paintings. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Link UCUM unit symbols[edit]

Hi, I think it would be useful to link each item related with a unit of measurement with the unit symbols of the UCUM specification, which defines a set of codes to unambiguously represent all unit symbols currently used internationally in science, engineering, and business. It's focused on machine-to-machine communication, so it's a good candidate to be linked within wikidata :-)

The UCUM specification defines all codes, and there is also an UCUM specification in XML. For each unit of measurement different attributes are defined, like:

  • full unit name (e.g. "meter")
  • quantity kind (e.g. "length")
  • different (clean 7-bit US-ASCII) symbol codes:
    • case-sensitive code (e.g. m for metre, Ao for ?ngstr?m, or [ft_i] for foot)
    • case-insensitive code (e.g. M for metre, AO for ?ngstr?m, or [FT_I] for foot), for machines that cannot work with lower-case letters
    • human-readable printable unit (e.g. "m" for metre, "?" for ?ngstr?m, or "ft" for foot)
  • definition factor (e.g. "0.1 nm" for ?ngstr?m)
  • Whether SI prefixes can be used with this unit or not (e.g. "km" means 1000 meters, but "kmin" cannot be used to indicate 1000 minutes)

Thefore, if each wikidata item about a unit of measurement is linked with the UCUM code, it would be possible to automatically extract/check from the UCUM specification some information like the definition factor for unit conversions and so on. Or detect missing items in Wikidata.

I was thinking that it would be enough to indicate the case-sensitive code in each Wikidata item. My doubt is the best way to do it properly. Currently it already exists the property unit symbol (P5061), so I tried in a couple of items (metre and cubic yard) to use this property to indicate the code, adding as a reference the UCUM item (with the stated in (P248) property). However, the unit symbol (P5061) property just accepts a monolingual text, and therefore a language code must be indicated. I saw that ISO 639 already dedicates a few special codes like "und" or "zxx", but these language codes are not accepted by Wikidata for monolingual text (which is understandable). So I just used "English", which is a bit problematic since in both cases it is already defined for English (with the same value in the first example, both as "m", and with a different value in the second, with "yd3"), and more over it does not convey that this is a special code.


unit symbol
Preferred rank m Arbcom ru editing.svg edit
▼ 1 reference


+ add value
unit symbol
Preferred rank [cyd_i] Arbcom ru editing.svg edit
▼ 1 reference


+ add value

Of course it would be possible to propose a new Wikidata property specifically for this ("UCUM code" or something like this), but any other idea that can just use existing properties? Thanks in advance for all your feeback! —surue?a 06:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Suruena: This sounds like it should be a special property, different from unit symbol (P5061). [ft_i] is not a symbol commonly used for foot, for example, so asserting this is the "unit symbol" would be confusing. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I've created the Wikidata:Property proposal/UCUM_code, and removed from metre and cubic yard the added code examples. —surue?a 13:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Would it be possible to receive an notification whenever another user links to an item created by me? I'll really appreciate that. --Trade (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can set that under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if you disable it for particular items. I have a few which are sporadically popular and will sometimes generate a few hundred notifications in one day. Ghouston (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think I'll just turn the feature off, since the vast majority of the notifications I get seem to be for the same boring items. Ghouston (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ghouston:, what are these boring items? --Trade (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Things like Wellington City (Q47037646) and Emporis Building Directory (Q52701206), it's not so much that the items are especially boring, but I'm bored with seeing yet another link to them. Ghouston (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How to model a legal case that went through several courts?[edit]

I have started Urgenda v. Netherlands (Q79372212) but am stuck in a number of ways, e.g. what other statements to add and how to link this item to the (yet-to-be-created) lower-instance parts of that legal battle. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Start & end dates for each court value, with object has role (P3831) to specify the nature of each hearing ... follows (P155) and followed by (P156) ... this seems to be the model for many sequential properties of an item? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Url and not archive url[edit]

Hello. Some times, by mistake, reference URL (P854) has value that is an archive version, not the original source. I think we must have a constraint about that. For archive URL (P1065) we have format as a regular expression (P1793). I believe that we can add the value of format as a regular expression (P1793) of archive URL (P1065) to reference URL (P854) as a constraint (reference URL (P854) must not have that format). What do you think? If I am correct, can some one apply it? Xaris333 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • If you never saw the original, and got your data from the archive, isn't it intellectually dishonest to claim the original you never saw as your reference? - Jmabel (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

But you have the archive url and the archive date so you know how the original was that date. Xaris333 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • So, similarly, if (for example) you were to see Richard Hofstadter (Q982698) quote James Madison (Q11813), it would be OK to cite the latter as the source? It's a while since I was in academia, but from what I remember of citation standards (and which I apply on WMF projects), it is not appropriate to cite a work you have not actually seen, except with a qualification of whose citation/quote of that source you are following. Are we simply trusting that archives are so reliable that we can consider ourselves to have effectively consulted the underlying source? Or what? - Jmabel (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

But we trust archive url. If we don't, why we are using them? Xaris333 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • For exactly the same reason as, in my example, you would trust Hofstadter. But it is generally considered, in academia a least, as intellectually dishonest to attribute your information directly to a source you have not personally seen. In the above, you would definitely cite "…Madison as quoted in Hofstadter…", not simply "…Madison…". The difference is whether your actual source is Hofstadter or Madison. Similarly, it seems to me there is a difference between having something first-hand only from the archive, and that is your actual source, vs. having it from the original source, and quoting the archive only as a convenience link. While we generally trust the archive to be accurate, we don't necessarily trust it to be so perfect and complete as to be interchangeable with the original. For the most obvious example, the original may have illustrations that are missing from the archive. - Jmabel (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

So, why we are not using only archive url as the source and we add url that are archive url? Xaris333 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  1. Could you reword that last? I'm not sure I can make sense of it.
  2. I believe that typically, the reason we end up with an archive url is that originally someone cited something from a particular (non-archive) page as it stood on a particular date, and the archive url is intended to back that up because (or in case) that information is no longer available at the original source. - Jmabel (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If we don't have the original url (is dead) and we never saw it and we decide to use the archive url as a reference, why we insert the archive url with reference URL (P854) and not with archive URL (P1065)? Xaris333 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Again, I can't follow the grammar of that ("why we" makes no sense) but I would propose that in that circumstance you should insert the archive url with reference URL (P854). - Jmabel (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The beginning of the discussion: "Some times, by mistake, URL (reference URL (P854)) has value that is an archive version, not the original source." Do you agree with that? Xaris333 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • What would one be supposed to use when the original URL is on a main statement, like full work available at (P953)? You would know the original URL, even if it doesn't work anymore. Ghouston (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


I am confused. My question is: if a url is dead (we never saw the original) and we have an archive url, should we add this archive url as a reference

a) with reference URL (P854) or

b) with archive URL (P1065) or

c) with archive URL (P1065) and the dead url with reference URL (P854) ?

Xaris333 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I believe, and have said above, that by traditional academic standards, reference URL (P854) for the archive URL would be the most accurate. If we make a decision for purposes of convenience to deviate from that, I think the decision should be explicit. I could imagine a policy of using the archive URL with archive URL (P1065) and the dead URL with reference URL (P854) with some way to mark the fact that the page at the dead URL was never actually examined.
  • By the way, just today an issue came up on Commons that a particular archive is adding some snippets of their own that were not in the original of the pages they archived. - Jmabel (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

located in or next to body of water (P206) for reservoirs[edit]

Can we use located in or next to body of water (P206) for reservoir (Q131681)? Xaris333 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean using reservoirs in P206 statements? Definitely, especially when reservoir and its corresponding dam (Q12323) are split in two items already. To link a reservoir to the corresponding river, better do same as with a lake (Q23397) by using inflows (P200) and lake outflow (P201) - reservoirs are subclass of artificial lake (Q3215290) and thus subclass of lake anyway. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually I am asking about a human settlement that is near a reservoir (Q131681). Xaris333 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Query not returning all items?[edit]

Earlier today I used the Query https://w.wiki/EKF to find items which have a redundant instance of (P31) statement - urban municipality of Germany (Q42744322) is a subclass of place with town rights and privileges (Q13539802), thus there is no reason to state both in an item. Oddly, even after fixing all the results from the query, I now notice there are items which were not returned, e.g. Stadtprozelten (Q502939). Am I doing anything wrong, or is the query server working on incomplete data? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This query does the work. wdt: only considers best rank claims; thus, if there are any number of P31 statements with preferred rank, it does not see all normal rank P31 statements of that item. With p:P31/ps:P31 instead of wdt:P31 you get all results regardless of their ranks. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, did not notice that one statement had a different rank. And it's even the one which needs to be removed because of being redundant which is marked as preferred. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, these tiny little indicators… I once added some code to Special:MyPage/common.css to give statements with preferred or deprecated rank a solid background color (green or red, respectively). You might want to try this as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Note there are parts of WD with deep concept trees where such removal would be vandalism (chemistry, medbio, molbio). One statement is always the tree top (or one of a few main nodes that are often searched), and the second statement is the most specific, as usual. Without this the query server would time out because of endless tree walking. --SCIdude (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

item creater[edit]

how to find best item creaters in wikidata Amirh123 (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I vaguely recall that Simon Villeneuve ever show me something like this. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC).
Best by productivity, by quality, or immodestly self-proclaimed best? :) --Wolverène (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A quantity-based overview is available at wikiscan, which has tons of other numbers as well. Yet, item creation is to a far extent automated, thus the numbers do not have much meaning. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hiding the bots seems logical. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC).
(Very impressive, Ghuron, by the way! Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC).)
Tools like Quickstatement allows to use your regular account to do automated edits, without a bot flag. It’s a (very) common practice, I suspect far more used than regular bots, so hiding the bots is far not enough if you mean to exclude automated creations. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed... Nomen ad hoc (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC).

MisterSynergy, TomT0m: is there a way to show top IP contributors? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC).

CommonsDelinker and legend[edit]

The name of an image that is using in an item change. CommonsDelinker change the name of the image in the item. But also deleted the legends (media legend (P2096)). [1]. Why? Xaris333 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

At the moment the Greek media legend here does not match the Greek description on commons, the Greek legend here claims to be English, and the also existing English legend does not exist on commons. In other words, FUBAR, there must be only one description per language, and I'm not supposed to see Greek, because my ru-0 Cyril skills are not good enough to decode it, and my browser anyway does not indicate that I can sometimes decode Cyril. –84.46.52.84 19:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
And this is reason for CommonsDelinker to delete the legends? Xaris333 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It looks like just a side-effect of the way it's implemented. It deletes the entire statement, including qualifiers, then adds a new one. Ghouston (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The source code seems to be at https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/commons-delinquent/src/master/. Maybe @Steinsplitter: or @Zhuyifei1999: would be willing to look into it. Ghouston (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Typically that would make sense, a deleted legend == description for, say, a non-free photo of a living person in Athens 2019 won't fit for an older free photo of the same living person in Thessaloniki 2011. –84.46.52.84 02:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
These are just files that have been renamed, so it's the same image. I suppose it's possible that somebody used the wrong image in the wrong place because it has the wrong name, but sometimes it will be fine. Ghouston (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Auto-hiding of history and watch[edit]

"History" and "watch/unwatch" tabs are auto-hiding shortly (in ~0.5sec) after item loading for me. It is very inconvenient to live without them. I know at least one more user with the same problem. Can anybody help us? --Infovarius (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Even turning off all gadgets and cleaning all my common.js doesn't help - these two tabs simply disappears. What's happening? Does anybody experiences this too? Browsers Opera and Firefox. --Infovarius (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Cannot confirm on Chrome. --SCIdude (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Are they perhaps collapsing into a "More" tab? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

collapsing long list of values[edit]

Is there any tool or gadget to collapse the long statements for big items? Scrolling up/down with mouse wheel is really inconvenient. – Kwj2772 (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Add this to your common.js: $(".wikibase-statementlistview-listview").css({"max-height":"400px", "overflow-y":"auto"}); - Premeditated (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
This conflics with Violations Popup. --Infovarius (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot to add the semi-colon at the end. - Premeditated (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I feel like the UI should really do this by default --SilentSpike (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

5 conflicted categories should probably be reduced to 2[edit]

Here:
Taylor 49 (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unlikely; although there is some overlap, there are differences, and many languages have all three. How are they conflicted? Peter James (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Instead I would merge the first with Category:Foods (Q5611149) and Category:Food products (Q7134763) - I don't understand much difference. --Infovarius (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
There are still several sites where categories would have to be merged. Q5611149 is "Foods", not "Food", or at least it is on English Wikipedia, which also has Q7134763 as a subcategory, but the distinction between them is unclear so I may propose merging them. Q5645580 contains these, but also includes drink, and food manufacturers and production I would expect Premier Foods (Q7240301), for example, to be in a subcategory of Q5645580, but not in any other category mentioned here (actually it is, but the categories don't apply to it; it isn't a pie brand - or used prominently as a brand name on any of its products - and it isn't particularly associated with Cornish cuisine). Peter James (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, the amount of bad categories is 5 now (further growth possible). The comprehensive description of both Category:Cooking (Q6010682) and Category:Cuisine (Q9703849) is (in 17'000'000'000 dialects) "Wikimedia category". Many of them are shared between wikipedia and wiktionary, Category:Food products (Q7134763) is linked to only 2 wiktionaries, and Category:Cuisine (Q9703849) does NOT include any wiktionary. The simple problem on wiktionary is what lemmas have to be categorized where.
  • What is the scope ?
  • Does the category include only "hard" food (bread, bananas), or even drinks (beer, water) ?
  • Is only consumable material (food + drinks) included, or are even tools like spoon or colander, or even industrial manufacturing, ... ?
Taylor 49 (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
English Wiktionary is using "cooking" for both cooking and cuisine - definition 3.2 of cooking is synonymous with cuisine, but cooking typically means specific processes. So sashimi (Q190715) is part of Japanese cuisine, therefore in Q9703849, and is also a food product, and belongs in Q7134763, but not in Q6010682, whereas baking (Q720398) belongs in Q6010682, but not Q9703849 or Q7134763, and bread (Q7802) belongs in both Q6010682 and Q7134763 (or Q5611149), but not Q9703849. Q5645580 is a parent category of all of these categories and probably more not mentioned here. Peter James (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Constraint violation query not finding all items[edit]

There is a single best value constraint (Q52060874) on National Heritage List for England number (P1216), but the SPARQL query in the talk page documentation doesn't find all violations, or even produce the same number of results each time as the number varies between 38 and 40. One of the items not always found is HM Prison Leeds (Q5635217), which has been edited recently, but sometimes Borwick Hall (Q4946864), in which the statements haven't been changed recently, is also missing from the results. There are other items that are never found by this query, such as Wath Urn Bridge Over Clow Beck (Q26603191) - is there a reason for this? Peter James (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The "SPARQL (new)" links on property documentation boxes do not really work as they output only a small subset of actual violations. It relies on the "query constraint violations with WDQS" function that has not been completed yet. You can go with this simple query instead. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The constraint has an exception allowing multiple identifiers with different heritage status. Peter James (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
improved queryMisterSynergy (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Peter James (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I already reported the SPARQL(new) problem here. Since then I always use the "SPARQL" link left of "SPARQL(new)". --SCIdude (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Map with items[edit]

Not sure where (it might be a tweet by Wikipedia) I found a map with Wikidata items on it. I think the map was about Items near you that miss images. That is also how I found out that a railway station was at the wrong position on the map.
Now I can't find the map anymore. I found Wikidata:Tools/Visualize data but the map I'm looking for isn't on the list.
Any ideas? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikishootme/original.html ? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Or https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikishootme/wsm2.html#&interface_language=en ? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Or indeed https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikishootme/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The first one seems to be for Wikipedia only. The second one is pretty close, but the map didn't require to enter the coordinates and radius and had coloured circles (I think red for no image, green for existing image, and blue for something else). the third one doesn't work for me so far --D-Kuru (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hold your horses, I think it works now. I guess the internet was derpy. @Tagishsimon: The third map looks pretty alike. Thanks for the help! --D-Kuru (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reopening property proposal[edit]

I'm going to propose a property but I found someone already proposed it at Wikidata:Property proposal/Ciência ID. Should I reopen the old proposal? Or it is better to create a new one?--GZWDer (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently you are supposed to update status = not done <!-- leave this empty --> (?) –84.46.52.176 10:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@GZWDer: re-opened it. Maybe you can add another example? Multichill (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Too many requests aka sustainability of Wikidata[edit]

Too many requests.png

Wikidata is increasingly popular and consequently it becomes increasingly problematic to contribute to Wikidata. What I do at the moment is work on science and scientists about/from Africa. It is a subject that has a huge gap compared to general science. It is not possible to do maintenance for imho no good reasons. Quality is bandied as a reason to deny the use of SourceMD while at the same time a known quality deficient, bias generating project is accepted.

My request is to accept the use of SourceMD and thereby enable the work on science relevant to Africa. Be clear, more lives are saved by improved neo-natal and maternal care than cancer care. We do not find that in the numbers of Wikidata and it is an indicator of the bias we propagate. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have a clue what this word salad means? Is SourceMD blocked? Rate limited? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, he should concentrate on the "problematic to contribute to Wikidata" part. --SCIdude (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Items from Wikipedians[edit]

Is there a way to monitor item creations from new wiki articles? --SCIdude (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, is there a list of recent items from WP article creations? --SCIdude (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
SCIdude: I know Wikidata list could do this, but don't know how to do it. Take a look at Wikidata:Database reports. Esteban16 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Translatable properties[edit]

I'd like to propose a new "componentSteps" property containing the steps of a certain exercise, dance move, or similar. For example, the componentSteps for the grapevine dance move would be "1. Side step, 2. Step behind the support foot, 3. Side step, 4. Step across support foot". Unfortunately, it seems like this would require translatable properties in Wikidata, which it doesn't seem to allow yet.

Is there a way to add a property like this to Wikidata? Are there plans for handling translatable properties like this in Wikidata?

--Mirek2 (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Mirek2: Could you explain what you mean by a "translatable property"? If you just mean being able to have a different name in different languages, all properties have that.
  • Presumably you would propose this in exactly the same manner as any other property: Wikidata:Property proposal. - Jmabel (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Plural of units[edit]

Hello,

in the last time when I read the properties and the values of items I have seen that if the property has a value like year or a weight then in some languages it is another form of the unit if it is one as if it is more than one. For example at a age in years. As far as I know after I have asked it a few weeks agos are the units items. Are there ways to show the correct form of a unit. This is something what were also interesting for persons. I think in German and also in other languages there are differnt names of the same occupation for man and woman and if you could show there the more correct one that were great. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It really bothers me when duration (P2047) tells me that a song lasts 220 Second and etc. Hope there's a way to correct that. --Trade (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • This task is basically about choosing the right lexeme to represent a unit. It's possible to implement this properly but it likely takes some work and there are many areas in Wikidata that take work. ChristianKl ??? 12:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

single best value constraint[edit]

Arsos, Larnaca (Q56448937). At property population (P1082) there is "single best value constraint".

"This property should contain a single “best” value with the same determination method qualifier. Of the current multiple values, one should be marked with “preferred” rank."

But, due to political issue of Cyprus (Cyprus dispute (Q245831)), there is not census after 1973. And is useless to add as best value the 1973 census. Maybe North Cyprus made a census but no data added to Arsos, Larnaca (Q56448937) or to Arsos, Larnaca (Q4796610). Xaris333 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

sounds like a good case for marking the item as “exception to constraint”. - PKM (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
But there are almost 200 items with the same issue. Xaris333 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by no best value? Are there multiple estimates and there's no way to decide which is better? Ghouston (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
By "best" we can just mean most recent, so on Arsos, Larnaca (Q56448937) the best is 1973. Ghouston (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How can i make page for people ?[edit]

Hey I'm new to this stuff And i have a question How can i make page for popular person on Wikipedia ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blitzawy (talk • contribs).

Hi, this is Wikidata not Wikipedia. To understand basic principles you may want to read Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia. Esteban16 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
And I think it may be worth noting - at this stage of your editing experience, the person you are going to create an item/article for is not as popular as you think, otherwise they would already have an item/article. Quakewoody (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Should the Oü entry be merged into the general PLC entry?[edit]

Osaühing is an Estonian kind of a private limited company. The Osaühing article seems to describe only Estonian PLC and not PLC in general, and the same time I could not find a separate article about PLC in general in Estonian Wikipedia. The following Q16917171 entry has some translations for exactly this kind of PLC, and does not contain any interwiki links. I'm not sure if it should be merged into the general Q18624259 entry.

There seem to be cases when state-specific kinds of PLC have their own Wikidata entry. The Q15829892 describes only GmbH, and refers to Wikipedia articles in many languages as well. But neither this entry nor the general PLC entry refer to the Deutsch Wikipedia: instead, there are several articles about GmbH in several German-speaking countries! Though, GmbH has historical significance for the whole phenomenon of PLC, while Osaühing is not. Bodqhrohro (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No mergers. Wikis often conflate country-specific and general concept (mostly because of interwiki), but we have general one (private limited liability company (Q18624259)) and country-specific (limited liability company (Q149789), GmbH (Q460178), Q21191682, spole?nost s ru?ením omezenym (Q15646299) etc.) for legal form (P1454) use. Gesellschaft mit beschr?nkter Haftung (Q15829892) is a bit special, covering the concept of multiple country-specific concepts (but not suitable for legal form (P1454) use).--Jklamo (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User warnings[edit]

Are you doing something like {{uw-disruptive1}} on IP talk pages more than one week after the fact? –84.46.52.63 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Entered languages is not equal to translations of article?[edit]

Hello, I have a minor question that at first I wanted to ask on the chat but that doesn't connect! So, I hope it's OK to ask it here.
At CSV Apeldoorn (Q2140396) there is the language box that folds out when "All entered languages" is clicked. At any other item I've looked at, all the languages that item is translated into on WP are listed here. However in this instance, Hebrew is listed among the languages while there is no corresponding Hebrew language article of this club. The label is "No label defined", but there is a description though that Google Translate tells me means "A football team from the Netherlands". Why is Hebrew among the languages here? --Dutchy45 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

On Wikidata there are basically four area's that are connected to languages:
  • Label, every item has one label, that is usually the article name (without the brackets)
  • Description, every item has one short description that explains what the items actually is
  • Aliases, alternative labels, helpful when searching for wikidata items
  • sitelinks, a link to an article on a language wikipedia, or to wikinews, wikibooks, etc

It happens that not all are used for a certain language. Feel free to add info, if you have the info. Edoderoo (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks (and welcome back!)
I'm only blocked on nl-wiki. Just two more days to sit on my hands. There is more then enough that can be done, no worries, my time is filled. Edoderoo (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata dump files[edit]

Hi everyone! I have some questions about the Wikidata dumps. I'm importing the JSON dumps into a database, but the dumps do not have redirect information. Because of this, some relationships point to non-existent entities, which is causing data consistency issues. I found Phabricator tasks mentioning that the JSON dumps don't include redirect info, but there is not any recent activity on them. I'm ignoring the missing entities for now, but I need to find a longer-term solution that takes redirects into account.

To work around the issue, I tried parsing the owl:sameAs predicates out of the RDF files and creating an entity for each subject. That created some duplicate entities, which leads me to believe that some of the subject entities in the list of redirects exist in the JSON dump and some do not. This makes sense if the dump files are not snapshots in time, or if they are but the JSON and RDF dumps are run at different times.

To try to understand this better, can someone answer the following for me:

  1. Within a single dump file (JSON and/or RDF), is every entity that appears in a relationship guaranteed to be defined in the file? In other words, does the dump file represent a self-consistent snapshot of the database at a moment in time?
  2. If the above is true, then is it also true across the JSON and RDF files in a given dump directory?
  3. I looked at various ways to access JSON data on entities, and I get redirect data via the API (e.g. http://www.palabrario.com/w/api.php?action=wbgetentities&ids=Q390537) but not via the persistent URI (e.g. http://www.palabrario.com/wiki/Special:EntityData/Q390537.json). Is the latter what is used for the JSON dump files?
  4. My understanding is that a redirect is created when duplicate entities are discovered in the database, at which point the duplicate entities are redirected to one canonical entity. This is done so that links that point to the duplicate entities will automatically resolve to the canonical entity without having to update the links (e.g. in relationships). Is this understanding correct?
  5. If the above is true, is it also true that, once an entity is changed to a redirect entity, it will never be changed back?
  6. Should I be using the RDF dump instead of the JSON dump? I'd prefer JSON because of the availability of standard parsing tools, and because the one-entity-per-line format makes parsing much easier.

If there is a more appropriate place for me to ask these questions, or if you need more information from me, please let me know. Thanks in advance for the help! --Mventimi (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • There's a bot that resolves statement links to redirects to the target item, so maybe you'll only find them for items that have been redirected recently. An option would be to query the live database for the redirect target. You can't say for sure that "once an entity is changed to a redirect entity, it will never be changed back", since redirects can be reverted if somebody thinks they were a mistake. Ghouston (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you know how often that bot runs? I'm finding a good amount of redirects still present in statement links. I've downloaded the 12/9 and 12/23 dumps, so I'll go through them both to quantify "a good amount" and to determine whether the bot cleaned up the redirects between the 12/9 and 12/23 dumps.
What you said about reversions makes sense. I was hoping that I could come up with a hard rule to resolve the case where an entity shows up as both a defined item in the JSON dump and a redirect in the RDF dump. However, reversions mean that I can't really know which of those take precedence.
Do you have an idea about the dump consistency questions? Looking through Phabricator, I found some statements in T144103 that imply that a single dump file is consistent, but that different files are not. However, T128876 implies that even a single file is not consistent. --Mventimi (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The redirects are fixed by KrBot. I merged one item at 2019-12-19T10:17:49?, and the bot fixed up a reference at 2019-12-22T00:27:44, less than 3 days later. I don't know anything about the dumps, sorry. Ghouston (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Biblical categories changeup at Commons[edit]

Commons has recently renamed all categories pertaining to persons named in the Bible. The category moves should be reflected in the interwiki links, however all of the links from Commons category (P373) will need to be updated. Example: Adam (Q70899) has Commons category (P373) linked to the old Category:Adam, but the interwiki now points to the new commons:Category:Adam (Biblical figure).

Note: many of these categories still bear discussion labels, so it's possible the category renames will be challenged and the whole process begin again, but the linked discussion seems to have ended in October, and the moves have just been undertaken this week. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Pi bot will probably do it. Ghouston (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a nice example of why we should stop storing duplicate Commons category values - moving the categories auto-updates the links, so if we didn't store duplicates in Commons category (P373), this would already be sorted out. They are also showing up in the enwp commons category tracking categories (another set of duplicates), so if Pi bot doesn't automatically catch them then I'll probably go through and remove the bad Commons category (P373) values at some point (after which a bot can auto-add them back if so desired). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Q60750700/Q28838695[edit]

These items seems the same but both of them have a Commons category.--GZWDer (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There may be a second person involved, because the fountain at c:Category:Alexander Taylor memorial fountain is described at [2] as "Erected to the memory of Alexander Taylor, Merchant in Aberdeen by his daughter, Jane Forbes Taylor, Morkeu, Cults". Ghouston (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The other Alexander Taylor died in 1867 [3]. I suppose we should create a new item for him if one doesn't already exist, since he has a memorial fountain and it would help avoid confusion. Ghouston (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Condensed interface layout[edit]

Is there a common skin that makes the standard interface more compact? Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2015/04#wd-condensed.css: Condensed Wikidata UI CSS was last mentioned almost half a decade ago with few updates since. czar 03:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)