Wikidata:Project chat

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 2025/04.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Are Shroud of Turin (Q178331) (most sitelinks) and Shroud of Turin (Q3961619) the same? The second only has 4 language wikipedia sitelinks, which might be duplicates of the same 4 languages on the first item (which are French, Italian, Picard & Norman).

Also Jesus (Q302) uses an image of the shroud of Turin, and I understand there's a dispute about it's origin. Should the image be deprecated and a statement is subject of (P805) qualifier be added, where I don't' believe there's presently an item to have as it's value, where, for example, Christ myth theory (Q1073301) is an item used to deprecate one of the instance of (P31) values.

Not sure where else to flag this so posting here. Tæppa (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a technical distinction between the actual cloth used to wrap Jesus and the cloth currently in Turin, which latter is merely claimed to be the same as the former. I'm not sure how we should model that. CC @Ash Crow who has been adjusting labels in a way that brings them together. Bovlb (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the distinction, but the previous label ("Mandylion") refers to another artifact altogether: Image of Edessa (Q223246). I guess Shroud of Turin (Q3961619) should be labelled "Holy Shroud". -Ash Crow (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it perhaps the case that the Shroud of Turin (Q3961619) (no enwiki) is said to be the same as (P460) Shroud of Turin (Q178331) (main wikidata item for the much discussed physical shroud) and Image of Edessa (Q223246)?

While we're here, there seems to be an adjacent set of bad claims on Holy Chalice (Q1595294) (holy grail concept) that has country=Spain & a host of other non-Spain locations. Without using this thread to discuss the specifics, there's also Holy Grail (Q162808) which is the grail from Arthurian legend, where a cursory browse of the various wikipedia sitelinks reveals an inconsistent / complicated set of understanding on whether it's the grail from the New Testament (Q18813) or Arthurian romance (Q715768).

It might be the case that it would be too awkward documenting these potential issues on the Project Chat so I would welcome any advise on a better place to put this thread, especially if it would involve a multilingual wiki cleanup (if that is indeed the necessary outcome) Tæppa (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of places claim to have (pieces of) this cloth or pieces of the cross. Combined probably enough material to build a circus tent. So please keep the items separate, but linked. Multichill (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite tell what you meant here. What I'm pointing out is that, when looking at the full set of claims & sitelinks, the concepts aren't separate nor are they linked.

My main contention is that Shroud of Turin (Q3961619) is named "Shroud of Turin" rather than a specific english name for the shroud mentioned in the Gospels, which, if I'm reading the item correct, is what Shroud of Turin (Q178331) is claimed to be by various people (and that claim is acknowledged but disputed by others).

The only other religious relic type object I've looked at on wikdiata is Holy Chalice (Q1595294), which is an amalgamation of all sorts of claims and identifiers about different chalices, with wikipedias such as Spanish wikidata linking through to Holy Grail (Q162808) as the concept of the chalice, despite that item being about the one mentioned in Arthurian romance.

I also note that Holy Grail (Q162808) is claimed to be different from Graal (Q417519), a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), not sure what's going on there. Tæppa (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the best place is to put this, but I've recently noticed Team USA athletes database (Q106273975) was archived. This makes sense as the previous website was via teamusa.org. This website now redirects to teamusa.com, which is active. I'm not sure the implications for the database or the path forward here. Should a new Q be made for the "new" website and "new" database? Is it possible to adjust the current database? I don't have enough experience with this project to know what to do, but thought I'd bring it to attention somewhere. GauchoDude (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GauchoDude: I don't think a new Wikidata item is required since Team USA athletes database (Q106273975) can be the item for both the former website TeamUSA.org (archived link) and the current website TeamUSA.com. However, the Wikidata property TeamUSA.org athlete ID (archived) (P4063) uses an archived link for athlete profiles due to the new website using a different ID format. Using John Shuster (Q950973) as an example, the old ID at TeamUSA.org was SH/John-Shuster (archived link) and the new ID at TeamUSA.com is john-shuster-810650. A new Wikidata property should be created for the new ID and URL, so I just requested that at Wikidata:Property proposal/TeamUSA.com athlete ID. -- Zyxw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When adding the significant residents of a house is the proper form at Q107599584 (occupant) or Q1525759 (significant person/object of statement etc)? I want to do this for the White House and 10 Downing Street etc! No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the residences of heads of state that would a huge duplication of information that could be deduced from a query. Vicarage (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you know what the proper form is to add residents though? At the Carter house I used occupant with start/end dates but for Kelmscott Manor I used significant person. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we include data of this type? For example, item Q39515721 is the plant species Phyllanthus ferdinandi, which some authorities have spelled Phyllanthus ferdinandii (i.e. with a double 'i'). I don't believe it should have its own Q item, as the two names refer to the same concept of a species. But how do we include that information in the item's page? Junglenut (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it should be a separate item in Wikidata? Junglenut (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Phyllanthus ferdinandii to the "Also known as" field, and from spot checking indicated how some databases list Phyllanthus ferdinandii via the subject named as (P1810) qualifier. For simple orthographic variants or typos, I don't think separate items are warranted. -Animalparty (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor nitpick, but why is the Data access link in the site footer before Desktop/Mobile (the skin toggle)? On the other Wikimedia wikis I visit, the toggle is the very last link in the bottom right corner of the page. I have to adjust for Wikidata. Luckily my interface language (English) has translations for both, but the Desktop toggle has many more translations than Data access.

May I suggest putting the Data access link to the left of Desktop, or removing it entirely unless it is critically important. Commander Keane (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else, but I was wondering what the consensus is, or opinions are, on adding AI generated images to items. I can see a use case for it when the item is specifical relates to AI artwork or is about a notable piece of art that was created by AI. But there's instances where it seems to be problematic. For example, adding an AI generated image to an item for a historical event or fantasy subject where there's already plenty of images by notable artists and photographers that are PD. Obviously it would be pointless to illustrate the item for Abraham Lincoln with an AI generated image of him when there's already plenty of exiting photographs to do it with. The same probably goes for creatures from fairy tales or science fiction where there's already tons of drawings and images from well known, established artists and works that can be used instead. What do other people think about it though? Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I am new to Wikidata, but I would have expected an "AI-generated image" property as subproperty of image (P18), but I couldn't see one. Then with discretion it could be used like image of interior (P5775) on Seikan Tunnel (Q99250). There is item AI-generated image (Q116177346). Commander Keane (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That usage sounds like a variant of artist's impression (Q2115320), and I don't think the involvement of AI technology makes a difference. So image (P18) with qualifiers seems fine. Even the new AI-generation prompt (P13381) could be used but that seems excessive Vicarage (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with using a property in instances where the image is being used appropriately. The question I was asking is in what instances AI generated images shouldn't be used to begin with. Since obviously there's places where it wouldn't be appropriate or necessary to use an AI generated image of something for whatever reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are added and removed based on whether they are appropriate or not and this is already done effectively. Adamant1 has a huge problem with anything AI-generated and on Commons it seems much like they would like to have them all removed from everywhere. or fantasy subject where there's already plenty of images it depends on which image is illustrating the subject best. Items use images that are helpful and illustrate the subject. In the case of the science fiction subgenre that you're referring to an AI image was illustrating it well and there was basically no other image that actually illustrates the subject but another image could also be added alongside it. I don't know of any historical event with an AI image set on the item and neither any fairy tale for which there PD art, what you're talking of is a solution in search of a problem. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They would like to have them all removed from everywhere. I haven't taken a stance on it either way in this conversation. I could really care less what standard Wikidata uses. I'm just asking what exactly that standard is because there doesn't seem to be a policy or anything about it, which the last time I check is my prerogative. I'd love to what solution or problem you think I'm talking about here. My guess is that you don't have an answer outside of more lying about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not lie. 2. Please stop bad faith personal attacks accusing me of lying and likely lying more. 3. Maybe not in this conversation but in others and also it's implicit. I'd love to what solution or problem you think I'm talking about here. a) The perceived and portrayed 'problem' of AI images in Wikidata items b) the development of some consensus regarding AI images when they are currently effectively dealt with. Not that such couldn't be good but it's clear from other discussions that you seek some consensus against their use and the development of such is a solution in search of a problem as AI images aren't a problem and as said effectively dealt with as is. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The perceived and portrayed 'problem' of AI images I posed a couple of hypotheticals that I'm carious about to get the conversation going. Again, that's my prerogative. All you had to do was give a reason you disagreed with it and move on instead of pointlessly attacking me or turning this into an argument for no reason.

You seek some consensus against their use I pretty clearly said in my original that "I was wondering what the consensus is, or opinions are." Nowhere did say I propose anything or say AI images should be banned. That's why I said your lying. I ask a simple question about how people handle AI images on here and you respond by going off for multiple lines about how I'm trying to have AI images banned on Wikidata or some nonsense. Your just being dishonest. Again, I could really care less how people on here choose to handle AI images. I'm simply asking what the consensus is. It's not my issue if other people are against it. Your the one flipping out and making it about me and for no reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please no AI junk here. This is not improving Wikidata at all. Some examples:

• 
  mantid aliens (Q132133189)
• 
  Sting (Q20152)/magic sword (Q3965846)
• 
  biopunk (Q1077883)
• 
  This Is Fine (Q120800037)
• 
  Aliens–dinosaurs coexistence (Q133825642)
• 
  Fresh Dumbledore (Q133822024)

See also en:Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts. Please stop producing and adding this junk. Multichill (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

junk uncivil degradation.

Those images are all useful, many of them took several hours. They're good quality and there is no better-quality alternative to them. You made no reason for why to remove them. I added my images to the page you linked which by the way partly works because I laboriously identified and categorized many AI images accordingly. The images illustrate the subjects they're at and if you know of a better alternative image one could replace it plus they're captioned so as to clarify they were made using AI tools. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with AI in this context is not the technology, but the legal aspects of it. The Commons licensing policy clearly states "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content". If the AI was training on non-free material, which I hear is common, then that leaves use of generated content open to copyright disputes. Some cases like this is is being tried in the courts these days.

Seems to me the only acceptable use of AI on Commons would be if you can guarantee it was made by an AI that have only been training on public domain material.

Whether people prefer the wikis to be AI-free is another discussion. Say the article for Big Ben didn't have any free pictures of it on Commons. This would incentivize someone to snap a picture of it and donate it. This incentive is lost if you post an artificially generated picture in its stead. But I'm open to AI having some niche uses. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a well-reasoned case. Maybe other users could add more details on this but just briefly:
no such legal case had any success, all things such as past legal cases and comparable things essentially mean AI images are / can be public domain licensed, and thirdly machines are allowed to learn and be inspired from from public art like humans can when they browse the Web or watch TV. Moreover, so far Wikimedia projects did not go on to assume anti-free-culture stances, for example see the Monkey selfie copyright dispute. This incentive is lost I do not think this is the case. It may only be slightly weakened but in any case such items do not have an AI image (just few items have them and I think nearly all for subjects that can't be photographed) and most photographers are not deciding whether or not to take a photo based on whether a Wikidata item has an image set in practice and can just replace the image anyway. Lastly if there are some copyright issues with the AI models training on copyrighted content, then that doesn't make the images, that are created from a random seed, copyvios. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No such legal case had any success As I know your aware AI images can be copyrighted in the United Kingdom and there's no way to tell what country they were originally created in. Although admittedly that's not the same as models being trained on copyrighted images but it's still a legal issue that could put re-users at risk and if there was any other type of media where we couldn't determine the country of origin it wouldn't be hosted on Commons. AI artwork just gets a free pass because people like you throw a tantrum any time someone brings the subject up. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I would agree only AI images explicitly released under CCBY/PD by the prompter/creator (note that the images above have all been edited extensively too) should be used. The images above are of that kind. I'm not throwing a tantrum and that's not the reasoning behind that. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I'm not sure how that would solve the problem. Would you support a requirement that people who upload AI generated images have to include the country of origin though? Just because the United Kingdom is currently the only place where the images can be copyrighted doesn't mean other countries won't pass similar laws at some point. By not having a policy about it now we're kind of screwing ourselves later when they do because there's no way to know where images came from after the fact. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they insist on licensing it under something different than public domain maybe that would make sense (haven't formed an opinion on it and currently would neither support nor oppose). However, there isn't much of a difference between CCBY and public domain (c:Template:PD-algorithm) and if the image was edited extensively then setting a license different to PD I think can make sense even outside UK. I don't think it can cause much of a problem because most people who upload AI images would be fine if the license was changed from CCBY to PD and very few AI images from others were uploaded without explicit consent of the prompter. Here is how one of the larges media orgs in Germany summarizes things btw (translated): Legal experts agree that AI-generated works do not normally have an author in the legal sense, says lawyer Joerg Heidrich, who also advises AI companies: “For the user, this means that they can freely use an AI-generated image and post it on their website, for example - but on the other hand, anyone else can do the same with the same image.” To add there is that we're not actually talking about "AI-generated works" for a large part such as the example images above (esp the third): large parts have been AI-generated but they are combined and edited quite extensively. To be precise, those are works made using AI-generated components. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: We're kind of getting off track here, but the problem with CCBY licenses is that they have extra requirements like attribution that wouldn't be necessary if the images are PD. Plus at the end of the day AI generated images are "public domain" and that's because there's no author. If someone licenses an AI generated image as CCBY then it insinuates they created image when they didn't. Since as you say, a lot of countries don't think there's an author to AI generated works. Really, it's kind of licensing laundering and I doubt most AI generated images on Commons have been edited enough to be copyrightable. Although I don't really care if ones that have been are licensed as CCBY but I don't think every image should be by default and regardless of any editing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment From enwiki: "We have decided that, subject to common sense and with a number of exceptions, most images wholly generated by AI should not be used on en.wiki. Obvious exceptions include articles about AI, and articles about notable AI-generated images." We don't need to adopt every enwiki rule, but this makes a lot of sense to me. This should probably be an RFC here on Wikidata; in the mean time I would recommend restraint in this sort of activity. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One week ago today, I commented on the Administrators' Noticeboard:

Category:Properties ready for creation is backlogged again; there are currently 69 proposals awaiting attention

No one has replied, and that figure is now up to 85, with only two properties created in that time (and only 15 in the week before that).

I don't know how long the earliest of those 85 has been waiting, but Wikidata:Property proposal/Helden van het Verzet person ID, for example, was marked as ready on 11 February.

Our admins and property creators are volunteers; we have no right to expect anything from them in terms of increased effort. But if they are unwilling or unable to perform the necessary tasks, in a timely manner, we need to recruit more people who are willing to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy - I'll take a look. We had one particularly active property creator last year who seems to have retired this year, even just one person makes quite a difference in keeping up. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Despite your efforts, the total (which had gone up to 89 last time I looked) is still 84. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't have time for more than about 5 per day, which is about the rate they're being added. If somebody else steps up and helps then we can get through the backlog. If not we'll continue to fall behind. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is a decent amount of proposals i can't create because i am the only supporter Trade (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Count is now 87... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This backlog is easily explained by the fact that we have only 2/3 active property creators (including me) for the last 2 years or so (see last updated stats of March 2024), and it's very exhausting. I could try to get some activity back, but no promises, in the meantime I can simplify the work of one of the property creators a bit and you can create the given property. You don't have to do anything other than click on the “Run” button and all the necessary statements for the new property will be added for you. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have something to convert the property proposal template into a quickstatements script like that? It could be a generally very useful approach. Right now property creation is a bit painful as you note. ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly the problem. Creating a property is one click, but adding the info on the talk page is non-trivial and takes a lot of time (possibly less time if one does it every day). If it could be automatized, we would have no backlog. Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is an issue, we should think about migrating proposals to a more structured format, like JSON, but then it could become painful for applicants. The export, on the other hand, would be simple.

  The wildest idea is to create a new namespace "Proposal:" where proposals could be edited like regular items/properties and the voting/discussion could take place on the discussion page. Then it would definitely be one-click. But I'm not sure if this is technically possible. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People making the property proposals is a mixed bunch, a good number of them probably have little experience with properties. For this reason I think it is better that the burden of filling out the properties rest on someone experienced like a property creator. If we put too much demand on the proposers I think this will be off-putting to less experienced users.

I like Kirilloparma's approach supplying a QS batch. We could establish a separate section in WD:PP where experienced users can submit their property in a QuickStatements supported format (or JSON blob if creators don't mind using Wikibase-CLI) mostly filled out, which is a win-win in that scenario. The proposer puts in some effort up front and gets rewarded with having their property created without any noticeable waiting. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> This is exactly the problem. Creating a property is one click, but adding the info on the talk page is non-trivial and takes a lot of time

I strongly concur. The problem here is really not with the creation itself (I confirm this as a property creator with quite a significant experience), which can take a couple of minutes, but with everything that is connected before its creation, i.e. the pre-creation process.

Pre-creation (which others don't see) is a painstaking work, which as I noticed is not appreciated and can take 2/3 hours (roughly for 3 properties), sometimes dozens of hours if not several days (talking about 5 properties and more)[1]. If we take into account external identifiers and the property proposer doesn't provide a lot of things that are needed to create them (including trivial formatter URL), I look for everything myself and make it from scratch. This is all taking a lot of time.

Apart from that, there is a general lack of experienced property creators who could help or replace you, they may be somewhere, but many of them not actively involved. This is why there is such a significant backlog. Also when you observe such cases where some participants disrespect your work, undoing perfectly correct edits (without respecting the consensus as well), you instantly lose any desire to create anything, i.e. total demotivation and this is why I have now reduced my activity and I think I'm not the only one here.

[1] I remember that last year I created 12 properties at once, an absolute record that I don't want to repeat, because in this case it took almost 5 days for pre-creation, and despite the fact that I checked everything thoroughly, after creation I saw that some mistakes were made. 12 properties at a time is certainly good, but it takes both time and a lot of effort.

> Do you have something to convert the property proposal template into a quickstatements script like that?

Yes, if you are not comfortable (just like me) creating properties via Special:NewProperty and via Wikidata interface in general, you can use the PropertyCreator script. It's a simple script, although incomplete, but it helps you create them much faster.

As a second option, which I've been using for a long time, you can create properties (as many as you want) via QuickStatements (doesn't work with QS 3.0 yet), and the property schema itself via OpenRefine. Unfortunately, you can't create properties directly using OpenRefine, which is a pity because it would create them at once (as it does for items) without having to make dozens of edits. I think that in the future support for creating them in OpenRefine can be implemented (on my wishlist), but for now we can use it to create schemes, export them as a QS file and create a property using it, so here's how it works:

1. To begin with, I will provide you a raw schema in the form of a JSON file that I personally use for the new property (see above). You can tweak it later as you wish. See how it was exported.
2. Add it as a new one via Manage schemas, give it a name and refresh the page, see [1].
3. After that, Wikibase >> Edit Wikibase schema >> Start from an existing schema >> [Your schema] and try to save it. If you can't save it, it means that the current name of the reconciled column does not match the original column named by me, so remove my version and replace it with yours, see [2].
4. After saving the schema, export it as a QS file. Open it and replace CREATE with CREATE_PROPERTY then press TAB and be sure to define the property data type. So for instance external identifier properties should be listed as external-id (other entity types are defined on this QS documentation page). Prettify your raw file to make it easier for you to read and if everything is in order, go to https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch, from there paste the QS file and click Import V1 commands. Before you run it, make sure that all the necessary values of the new property are in order and if there are no issues, feel free to run the batch to create the property, but only by clicking on the Run button and not Run in background, because for some reason this option does not allow you to create properties in a correct way, see [3]

CREATE_PROPERTY	external-id
LAST	Len	"‎Delfi.ee theme ID"
LAST	Den	"identifier of a theme in the ‎Delfi.ee database"
LAST	Lru	"код темы ‎Delfi.ee"
LAST	Dru	"идентификатор темы в базе данных ‎Delfi.ee"
LAST	Aru	"идентификатор темы ‎Delfi.ee"
LAST	P31	Q105946994
LAST	P2378	Q1184119
LAST	P6104	Q8407597
LAST	P10726	"somevalue"
LAST	P17	Q191
LAST	P1552	Q93868746
LAST	P4876	30075	P585	+2025-03-17T00:00:00Z/11	S4656	"https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Delfi.ee_theme_ID&direction=next&oldid=2326368745"	S813	+2025-03-28T00:00:00Z/11
LAST	P1629	Q1184119
LAST	P9073	Q1184119
LAST	P1855	Q583997	P13403	"24778991"
LAST	P1855	Q107033991	P13403	"57732906"
LAST	P1855	Q630524	P13403	"34363295"
LAST	P1630	"https://www.delfi.ee/teema/$1"	P407	Q9072
LAST	P8966	"^https?:\/\/(?:www\.)?delfi\.ee\/teema\/([1-9][0-9]+)(?:\/(?:[a-z\d]+(?:\-[a-z\d]+)*))?"	P10999	"^(.+?)\ \-\ Delfi$"
LAST	P4354	"https://www.delfi.ee/otsing?search=$1"	P407	Q9072
LAST	P1793	"^[1-9][0-9]+$"	P4240	Q98056596
LAST	P1896	"https://www.delfi.ee"	P407	Q9072
LAST	P2429	Q21873886
LAST	P2668	Q23611288
LAST	P1659	P13295
LAST	P1659	P9937
LAST	P3254	"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Delfi.ee_theme_ID"
LAST	P2302	Q19474404
LAST	P2302	Q21502410
LAST	P2302	Q21502404	P1793	"[1-9][0-9]+"
LAST	P2302	Q52004125	P2305	Q29934200
LAST	P2302	Q53869507	P5314	Q54828448	P5314	Q54828450
Q1184119	Lmul	"Delfi"
Q1184119	Amul	"delfi.ee"
Q1184119	Amul	"delfi.lt"
Q1184119	Amul	"delfi.lv"
Q1184119	Amul	"rus.delfi.ee"
Q1184119	Amul	"rus.delfi.lv"
Q1184119	Llv	"Delfi"
Q1184119	Let	"Delfi"
Q1184119	Lru	"Delfi"
Q1184119	Lda	"Delfi"
Q1184119	Lbe	"Delfi"
Q1184119	Llt	"Delfi"
Q1184119	Luk	"Delfi"
Q583997	Dru	"театр оперы и балета в Таллине, Эстония"
Q107033991	Lru	"Йонатан Всевиов"
Q107033991	Dru	"эстонский дипломат"
Q630524	Dru	"международный аэропорт в Эстонии"
Q630524	Dca	"aeroport internacional d'Estònia"
Q630524	Dkv	"Таллинн"
Q583997	P13403	"24778991"	S4656	"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Delfi.ee_theme_ID"
Q107033991	P13403	"57732906"	S4656	"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Delfi.ee_theme_ID"
Q630524	P13403	"34363295"	S4656	"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Delfi.ee_theme_ID"
Q1184119	P1687	P13403

If you managed to create a property according to these instructions, your first edit after creating the property will look like this. You can track and view all properties created via QuickStatements here. By the way, if you want to share your QS batch with someone, see these instructions. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirilloparma: Thanks for these details, this looks really useful. Maybe we can make a better process to at least translate a completed property template into one of these QS batch files. I am confused however about your mention of a "PropertyCreator" script - the link you provide goes to a blank page. I've never heard of this, I'd like to know more about it! ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ [I can't make any sense of the indenting above; and the page markup is confused by the inclusion of so much code; please put such code on a sub page, and link to it]

What is meant by "pre-creation process"? What proportion of identifier prosasls, marked as ready, lack a formatter URL?

Speaking personally, I'd be happy if someone created the proprrties I propose (I currently have one open posposal, Wikidata:Property proposal/National Gallery (London) PID) and left it to me to poupulate them.

The current backlog is 78 proposals marked as "ready". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the second edition of the Wikidata contest Coordinate Me (May 2025) we, that is the organizing team at Wikimedia Österreich, would like to deliver central notices - request page - on several Wikimedia projects in the 27 participating countries and regions to invite people to join in. The CN shall be delivered, not permanently of course, from April 28 to May 11. --~~~~ Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some Russian monuments are linked to regional, rather than specific, Commons categories.

e.g. Q106547672 and Q106547578, and another 43 items have a Commons category (P373) value referring to c:Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kondopozhsky District.

Example query: https://w.wiki/DsUv

Can we undo this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go into it as long as AVSBot does that otherwise we will start an edit war. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree that such statements are inappropriate? User:Olksolo, do you wish to comment, as the bot operator? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, P373 does not require the distinct-value constraint. On the other hand, other properties used in such elements (P1483, P2186, ...) require the presence of P373. If the bot simply removes all the categories "Cultural heritage monuments in XXX", we will get 40000+ constraint violations instead of 2000+. Technically, we could tolerate this, but would it actually improve database consistency?
Moreover, this would harm the usability of the Commons mobile app. When uploading a photo via the mobile app, the nearest Wikidata item is selected by coordinates, and its category (P373) is auto-filled. Having at least a general category is still better than having none.
Once more specific categories become available, my bot automatically replaces 'Cultural heritage monuments in XXX' with the new ones over time. Olksolo (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P373 almost certainly should have a distinct-value constraint.

The idiosyncrasies of the Commons App should not be driving Wikidata (the English idiom of the tail wagging the dog would be apposite).

kulturnoe-nasledie.ru ID (P1483) and Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) likewise do not "require" a generic P373 value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with Andy, using Commons category (P373) here isn't useful overall. At best it causes a lot of backlog over at Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P373 (which is already massive and not updating properly), at worst it creates inconsistencies when individual monuments have their own Commons categories. Commons category (P373) is also just a string that doesn't allow for follow-back from Commons or easy navigation between items. I think there's better ways of modelling this, e.g., having a instance of (P31)=Wikimedia category (Q4167836) item and linking to that using related category (P7084). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this request. First, P373 does not have a distinct-value constraint. If it changes, the topic can be re-opened, but for now the discussion is premature. In fact, I can imagine various situations where several items should be linked to one Commons category. An example from cultural heritage: official registries often have separate entries for a church, its bell-tower, and the "ensemble" of the church+bell-tower as a whole. It is not practical to create separate Commons categories for each of these elements. All three elements should be linked to the same Commons category.

Second, the current arrangement is integral to the automatic categorization of images uploaded during Wiki Loves Monuments every year. Removing Commons categories from the Wikidata items will leave many images uncategorized. --Alexander (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"All three elements should be linked to the same Commons category" No; the "Parent" item should be linked to the Commons category; this is a classic 'Bonnie-and-Clyde' scenario. If WLM is relying on multiple links to single categories, its tools or processes need to be fixed (either to use the far better modelling described by Mile Peel, above; or redirects, as described at WD:BONNIE.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the Commons categories with something else would be fine, as long as it does not affect functionality. However, simply removing the links, as proposed in the initial message of this topic, is highly undesirable and should not be done. -- Alexander (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why we use this property for things like social media posts, video works and web browser games when content deliverer (P3274) exists? Trade (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When clicking on Svenska (Swedish) from en:Wikipedia:Projekt Fredrika/KAJ I would expect to come to sv:Wikipedia:Projekt Fredrika/KAJ based on how I entered Q134022831 but strangely enough I get pointed to sv:Taco hej (me Gusta). Why? (other language links work within Q134022831) Cogitato (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Wikidata, everything was correct, but some of the links in the English Wikipedia page were missing a leading colon (see this help page on the Meta-Wiki). I fixed the colons and the language links should now work properly. Valtaisa varpunen (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time, we read about someone who has died, at a stated age, with no birth date given.

It would be useful to have a script (or gadget) that would allow us to enter the death date, and the age (and maybe a source) which would then add them to the item, with the range of possible birth dates.

Here is a recent example of such an edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a date with year accuracy, and often one year out, seems pointless to me Vicarage (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what is added in the example edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A query clever enough to decode that dob could equally work on the date of death, so its superfluous. A missing date is more likely to trigger an accurate value, and a casual query result of 1990s is poor Vicarage (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Please feel free to start an RfC to deprecate such representation, which, AIUI, is normal here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NewQ5 tool allows you to enter the death date and age at death. The resulting QuickStatements code provides bookends on the earliest and latest birthdates that can yield such age. -Animalparty (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. AIUI, it does so with only month precision. The point of requesting a user script is to remove all unnecessary manual steps, to save time but more importantly mouse or keyboard clicks. Opening a separate website and copying results into a third website would fall within that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2025-04-22. Missed the previous one? See issue #675.
Translations are available

Events

• Upcoming: Yunlin Liu Fang Tien Shang Sheng Mu OpenStreetMap x Wikidata Workshop April 27 Time: 09:30-17:00 UTC+8 at Tuku Township (Q708809) Red Altar (Hongtan).
• Past: Missed the Q2 Wikidata+Wikibase office hour? You can catch up by reading the session log here: 2025-04-16 (Q2 2025)

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

• Blogs
  • qjson: Fetching all properties of a Wikidata item in a single API call By Santhosh Thottingal
  • A Wikibase call for action at the Wikimedia Hackathon 2025 By Ismael Olea
  • Putting UK collections on the map by the Museum Data Service
  • The April 2025 Scholia Hackathon by Egon Willighagen
• Papers
  • Talking Wikidata: Communication Patterns and Their Impact on Community Engagement in Collaborative Knowledge Graphs - Investigative study on Wikidata discussions, revealing that the community is generally inclusive and conflict is rare, but many controversial topics lack consensus, and valuable contributors disengage early. By Koutsiana et. al., (2025)
  • Natural history specimens collected and/or identified and deposited - By Latham (2025)
• Videos
  • Wiki Workshop 2025 - Wikidata Inconsistencies with Language Models and Data Mining in a Pipeline by Houcemeddine Turki
  • (Italian) Cla-G, an instance of Wikibase as a tool to support game classification by Carlo Bianchini
• Other
  • Wikidata & Wikibase for Authority Control & Knowledge Organization Workshop By AfLIA
  • Mastodon bot that "highlights natural compounds found in plants, fungi, bacteria or animals — and includes Wikidata references and visual structure depictions."

Tool of the week

• User:Spinster/Wikidata references made easier: The script helps in adding references to statements, in order to provide context for our data, make the data more reliable, transparent and trustworthy for anyone who uses it.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

• Registration is open for a Wikidata ontology course led by Peter Patel-Schneider and Ege Doğan. To register, email pfpschneidergmail.com with your Wikidata username and a brief note on your interest. The course starts 1 May, with weekly lectures on Thursdays from 1–3pm EDT (skipping 29 May and 12 June). Space may be limited; priority goes to those already interested. Participants should know Wikidata, attend sessions, complete weekly exercises (~1 hour), and join a group project. Details: Course page
• Wikifunctions is now integrated with Dagbani Wikipedia since April 15. It is the first project that will be able to call functions from Wikifunctions and integrate them in articles.
• Wikidata job openings at the The Wikimedia Foundation
  • Lead Product Manager, Wikidata Platform (remote)
  • Tech Lead, Wikidata Platform (remote)

Newest properties and property proposals to review

• Newest General datatypes:
  • number of texture mapping units (number of texture mapping units in a graphics processing unit)
• Newest External identifiers: Saarland Biografien ID, A Dictionary of Education entry ID, Cultural Heritage in Japan site ID, BirdLife DataZone site ID, BirdLife DataZone species ID, Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory ID, Internet-Portal „Westfälische Geschichte“ person ID, Chtyvo author ID, Homosaurus ID (V4)
• New General datatypes property proposals to review:
  • terminal speaker ()
  • organization code (the organization code of the organization item. Should either be used with qualifier property {{Q|P459}} to specify which system being used, or be used as the qualifier of {{P|31}}.)
  • organization unit code (the organization unit code of the organization unit/part/(sub)division item. Should either be used with qualifier property {{Q|P459}} to specify which system being used, or be used as the qualifier of {{P|31}}.)
  • Picture composition (Description of a picture composition (design rules) analogous to the Commons category “[[:commons:Category:Picture composition]]”)
  • MANDALA Tibetan Living Dictionary ID (entry for a lexeme in the Tibetan Living Dictionary by MANDALA)
  • Monarque régnant (Person who has held or is holding the role of king, queen, sultan, or other monarch at the head of a kingdom or empire.)
• New External identifier property proposals to review: Moure's Catalog ID, MobyGames attribute ID, Número RPJ, Identificador de obra no Catálogo Mourisco, IPRESS ID, TeamUSA.com athlete ID, IEC document kind classification code, Europe PMC Preprint identifier, Snopes ID, A Dictionary of Media and Communication entry ID, Black Sea Cultural Inventory ID, PyPI organization name, PlayStation Museum product ID, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology entry ID, A Dictionary of Public Health entry ID

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

• Query examples:
  • All Genres of Classical Musical Compositions and their Labels in English and German (source)
• WikiProject Highlights: Taiwan Travel - aims to create travel related items about Taiwan
• Showcase Items: Pete's Dragon (Q18786473) - 2016, film by David Lowery
• Showcase Lexemes: Bill (L3855) - English noun (/bɪl/) that can mean "invoice", "proposed law", "bird's beak", or "a given name":

Development

• Wikidata changes in watchlist and recent changes on Wikipedia and co: We are continuing the work on making the edit summaries more understandable(phab:T386200)
• Wikibase REST API: We are continuing to build out the simple search functionality (phab:T389011)
• Dark mode: We are fixing a few remaining issues with dark mode support in the Vector 2022 theme (phab:T389633)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Weekly Tasks

• Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
• Contribute to the showcase Item and Lexeme above.
• Govdirectory weekly focus country: Chile
• Summarize your WikiProject's ongoing activities in one or two sentences.
• Help translate or proofread the interface and documentation pages, in your own language!
• Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
• Help write the next summary!

· Previous issue · Full report · Unsubscribe · Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) talk · MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata talk:Status updates redirects to Wikidata talk:Status updates/Next.

Where are we supposed to discuss general issues with the "Status updates" newsletter (aka "Wikidata weekly summary"), or issues with the latest update (which today happens to be broken; see both the above copy, and, even worse, the version on my en.Wikipedia talk page)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the update above. Note that due to the way it was "broken", it wasn't delivered to local talk pages. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my en.Wikipedia talk page, and others, and still very broken there. The question remains: which venue is intended for Status update-specific discussions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to add a grant writing company Fair Grant Writing from Canada to Wikidata. What are my next steps? And how can it be verified? FairGrantWriting (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FairGrantWriting: Please see the Wikidata:Notability page for whether this organization qualifies. If there's no page for it on a language wikipedia then you will need serious third-party sources describing it. See also the Wikidata:WikiProject Companies discussions and in particular Wikidata talk:WikiProject Companies/Archive 2#Small businesses and notability. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find it helpful to read the essay: User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted Bovlb (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the google knowledge panel for Hancock Nursery School, Inc. incorrectly uses Q5647061. See Hancock Nursery School, Inc., which references the wikipedia page Hancock School.

Hancock Nursery School is distinct from Hancock School (Q5647061). Is there a way to break the association? I tried deleting the freebase id from Q5647061, but that didn't work. Faolin42 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese law, a "shichō" (branch office, Q850450) is an administrative agency established by a prefecture to handle part of its affairs. However, in other languages, this item is understood as a unit of administrative division. How should this discrepancy be addressed?

It seems that @Infovarius considers it a second-level administrative division. However, under Japanese law, the administrative hierarchy consists of the national government at the top, followed by prefectures, and then municipalities (cities, special wards, towns, and villages). "Shichō" subprefecture of Japan (Q850450) is not recognized as an administrative division in this structure. Afaz (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The URL match pattern (P8966) for Hall of Valor ID (P1869) seems to have recently changed, rendering previous links dead. I've attempted to update the URL (https://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient/recipient-$1/ versus the now defunct http://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient.php?recipientid=$1), and corresponding URL match pattern (P8966) value, but haven't yet seen corresponding changes in external links, even after purging. Does it take a while for such changes to show up, or have I done something wrong, or can only administrators make the required changes? Thanks. -Animalparty (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this takes a few days. Dexxor (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: You may have to "purge" pages with the old links too - Wikidata UI caches the links for a while when a page is viewed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cant help but notice most of the properties in this category is about the country of Georgia and not the US state Georgia. Anyone got a clue how to fix this? Properties about the country should ideally be in Category:Georgia-related properties (country) Trade (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the navigation templates based on the scope of the website ("database of Californian writers", etc) or is it also about websites whose only connection to the state is the headquarter/hosting location of the site? Trade (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago I suggested adding a feature to the keypress gadget so that you could press one key (I use 'R') and have all the references on an entity expand. If one is checking notability you don't want to be clicking on all those references to expand them. Is this something you think would be useful? If so, I can have it added. Infrastruktur (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the mausoleums in the Q6640527 and want to add items of individuals whose ashes are interred in a given mausoleum. What is the correct property for such (ie, "individual/person buried/interred here", or, "a reverse property for place of burial [P119]")? I have seen different properties used across the project:

• Occupant (P466) - Q6139920, Q835309, etc
• Dedicated to (P825) - Q56546631, etc
• Contains (P4330) - Q106153211, etc
• Commemorates (P547) - Q17526711, etc
• Named after (P138) - Q1721026, Q189648, etc

Which is the right one? Thanks! -- Chainwit. (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add two more examples to the list:

The term "Mausoleum" seems to derive from Mausoleum of Maussollos (Q45368) which is the place of burial (P119) of Mausolus (Q296857), but Mausoleum of Maussollos (Q45368) has no property linking through to Mausolus (Q296857), which might make sense in the context of a graveyard, where you don't want the graveyard item to become a list (SPARQL should be used to derive persons buried there), but a Mausoleum is likely going to be far smaller and might make sense to have symmetrical properties/linking (hence your question!).

Another notable mausoleum, which we would expect to be exemplary for learning how to tag other mausoleums, is The Royal Mausoleum (Q17530160), which simply uses of (DEPRECATED) (P642) as a qualifier on instance of (P31)mausoleum (Q162875) to link through to Victoria (Q9439) and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Q152245) (the only two persons interred there, as I gather from wikipedia).

Can someone cook up a SPARQL query (or otherwise) to find a mausoleum with a large quantity of deceased people interred in? If, let's say, there's a mausoleum with 100 deceased people in then we might decide it's unreasonable to link to any deceased person directly on the instance of (P31)mausoleum (Q162875) item. Tæppa (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SELECT ?place (COUNT(*) AS ?count) (SAMPLE(?item) AS ?sample) WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P119 ?place .
  ?place wdt:P31 wd:Q162875 .
}
GROUP BY ?place
ORDER BY DESC(?count)

Try it!

--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Wikidata Query Service to look up the release dates of video games, and I noticed a statistically implausible amount of games that have a release date on January 1 or December 31. Around 200 of these items probably have incorrect values imported from other databases.

Some video game items have imported a (probably) wrong release date value from Steam. For example, Hidden Mysteries: Titanic (Q113490523) and 9th Dawn Classic - Clunky controls edition (Q124062692) were both supposedly released on January 1, 2012, but steamdb.info shows that the app entities on Steam (369280, 679090) didn't exist until years later (2015 and 2017 respectively). However, the official Steam website actually does say that both games were released on January 1, 2012, because that's what the developers put in the Steam metadata.

(Other similar items: Strategic Command Classic: Global Conflict (Q113640002), DemonLisher (Q106368165), Digital Diamond Baseball V7 (Q122371018), Greyhound Manager 2 Rebooted (Q124066360), Data Hacker: Corruption (Q124064642), Philia : the Sequel to Elansar (Q124070473), Jet Set Knights (Q114944450), Tekling (Q122370481))

Is there a specific way that this situation should be represented for these kinds of items? In other cases where the value is clearly wrong I can just remove it, but this seems to be a little different. Overcast07 (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]