Wikidata:Contact the development team: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Hazard-Bot (talk | contribs) m Bot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 10 days) to Wikidata:Contact the development team/Archive/2016/03. |
Hazard-Bot (talk | contribs) m Bot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 10 days) to Wikidata:Contact the development team/Archive/2016/03. |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Request {{move}} to [[Wikidata:Project_chat#All_Coordinates_to.2Ffrom_Russian_Wikipedia_Have_an_Error|Wikidata:Project_chat]]. |
Request {{move}} to [[Wikidata:Project_chat#All_Coordinates_to.2Ffrom_Russian_Wikipedia_Have_an_Error|Wikidata:Project_chat]]. |
||
== formatterURL for Wikidata ID == |
|||
{{P|2617}} is now available. Please see discussion at [[Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#archINFORM.net availability]] for an example of how it should be used. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 16:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: Hey Andy. This seems like a very bad modeling. The identifier on that other page should just be added like any other identifier. It just happens to be the same as the item ID (in most cases - I don't know how it handles merges for example). Doing this with true/false also lets us run into all kinds of export and UI issues. --[[User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)}} I'm not clear what you mean by "The identifier on that other page". Please explain. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::With "The identifier on that other page" Lydia means the (primary) identifier for the given concept on the other page (this is usually modeled with an external identifier property these days). |
|||
:::I also agree that using an external identifier property is the best way to model these things, as external identifiers have the proper semantics and tooling support for this use case. Even if the external identifier value is the id of the item, it's still an external identifier and should be modeled as such. Cheers, [[User:Hoo man|Hoo man]] ([[User talk:Hoo man|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hi, I'm the main developer of "that other page" (archINFORM). The intent of the proposal has a more general background: Wikidata becomes the definitive provider of authority controls. Most content providers will include earlier or later Wikidata-ID's into their database entries (and could set up easily resolver links like the proposed one from archINFORM). In the past a similar way already established for the German GND-Identifier, called BEACON ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BEACON ) |
|||
::::Isn't it better to transfer the job of maintaining the relationships to the specific content providers, than doing that in Wikidata? |
|||
::::Maybe there are some conflicts in existing UI and export modules, but this shouldn't be the reason to decline this idea. --[[User:Arch2all|Arch2all]] ([[User talk:Arch2all|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Arch2all}} I think it's great that Wikidata IDs are being used to model and identify data within other projects. Obviously there are several ways to model this on Wikidata, as we have more knowledge about these ids already in place than what we have with identifiers in general. It might be tempting to "re use" the information that is already in Wikidata (the item id) by inventing a new way to model these things, but I don't think we should do that, mainly because I'm concerned about consistency and tooling support. |
|||
:::::I fail to see that the advantages of having a new and fundamentally different way to model/ handle a subset of identifiers outweigh the disadvantages mostly in regards to consistency. Also this new form of modeling would only be correct if the external data set is built around Wikidata in a way that ties the (actual current) id of the Wikidata item to the concept within the external data set, or in other words: If I merge an item and the id changes, that would need to be reflected in your data set immediately, otherwise such a modeling would be problematic in these cases. Cheers, [[User:Hoo man|Hoo man]] ([[User talk:Hoo man|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Imagine the external data provider changes his website/database structure. All related wikidata entries will be broken! If the provider offers a Wikidata resolver like the arcHINFORM proposal suggests, this won't be a problem. --[[User:Arch2all|Arch2all]] ([[User talk:Arch2all|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ping|Arch2all}} Sure, but how would the proposed modeling help in that case? For the case you describe it makes no difference whether we have an external identifier that contains the item id or something that magically maps to a URL using the item id. I still don't see what the problem with having external identifiers whose value is identical to the item's id is. Cheers, [[User:Hoo man|Hoo man]] ([[User talk:Hoo man|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I agree with Hoo here, I don't see the benefits to creating a new way to model these. It creates more complexity for us and for people using the data when the only difference is that the ID is most likely the same as the current Wikidata one - only "most likely" because we can't guarantee that any external website is actually in sync with Wikidata (even Wikidata's own query service which updates almost instantly manages to get out of sync sometimes). - [[User:Nikki|Nikki]] ([[User talk:Nikki|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::If that is indeed what [[User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia]] meant, it is a pity that ''no-one'' has yet made that point in the property proposal I linked to above, which has been open - on a well-visited page - since 28 January. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You should have taken this to the project chat, as what you are suggesting here is way more than just a new property: You were suggesting a whole new way to model something that is fundamental to Wikidata. I guess that many also didn't understand the purpose of your request, thus didn't comment. Cheers, [[User:Hoo man|Hoo man]] ([[User talk:Hoo man|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The property proposal was not mine. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Updates for [[Special:ConstraintReport]] == |
|||
It seems that the weekly update of constraints hasn't run for months, e.g. since August, looking at [[Special:ConstraintReport/Q2345]] listing an error for "Value type [...] class: award; relation: subclass" on [[Q2345#P1411]] that was changed in August [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P1411&diff=prev&oldid=245845095]. <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Would run the update? <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: {{Ping|Hoo man}} would you? --[[User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{ping|Jura1}} {{done}}, I've re-generated the data late yesterday and just applied it. - [[User:Hoo man|Hoo man]] ([[User talk:Hoo man|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Quantity datatype == |
== Quantity datatype == |
||
Revision as of 06:53, 2 April 2016
| Development plan | Usability and usefulness | Status updates | Development input | Contact the development team |
Translate this header box!
Contact the development team
Wikidata development is ongoing. You can leave notes for the development team here or report bugs on Phabricator. (See the list of open bugs on Phabricator.) If you have questions or bug reports related to the Wikidata Query Service or search on Wikidata, please add them to this page. If you have suggestions or requests regarding the entity suggester ranking, please see this page. |
 |
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/11. |
All Coordinates to/from Russian Wikipedia Have an Error
Request 
Move to Wikidata:Project_chat.
Quantity datatype
For some measurement units convertions we know exact value (e.g. hour (Q25235) is exactly 60 minute (Q7727), apothecaries' drachm (Q4068266) is exactly 3 scruple (Q1573593), by the definition), but a quantity datatype have internal represantation as decimal fraction. So we can express hour (Q25235): P2370 = 60 minute (Q7727) (exactly), but we cannot express minute (Q7727): P2370 = 1/60 hour (Q25235), scruple (Q1573593): P2370 = 1/3 apothecaries' drachm (Q4068266), due to the result is a periodical decimal fraction.
Can the developer allow to enter and store quantity value as either decimal or rational fraction? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): What you thinks about this suggestion? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah we need to solve that. However I have not spend much time thinking this through properly and made a decision how to move forward. Other things have been more pressing. It is definitely something on my list though. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is there anything on Phabricator yet? I remember someone else asking if it's possible to store things like "33 1/3". - Nikki (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Adding qualifiers after you have created or edited a claim
If you have created or edited a claim, you can after saving see a link to add a qualifier to that claim. If you click this link then you can add a qualifier as normal, however you cannot save this addition (there is no save button) until you click to "edit" the statement, which fortunately does not remove what you have just done. However it is not I suspect what is intended. I have no preference whether the fix should be to disable adding qualifiers without first clicking to to edit the statement, or to allow qualifiers to be saved without having click this - however one or the other should be done. This applies in Firefox 45.0 on Xubuntu Linux, I haven't tested on other systems/browsers. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 20:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- According to phab:T128317 this has been resolved and the fix will be deployed soon. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf, Sjoerddebruin: I've just applied the fix to Wikidata, it should be fine again. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Translation extension: $wgTranslateBlacklist
If we remove values from the above configuration ("en"), can do the translations discussed in Wikidata:Translators'_noticeboard#Source_language?
--- Jura 06:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know, this is not possible or has at least not been properly tested by the language engineering team. Feel free to propose such a change, but it's quite likely that additional work or at least testing will be required before that change can be implemented. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I brought it up on the translators' board and apparently it had already been asked for other wikis. Can we attempt to test it, e.g. at https://test.wikidata.org ? Either it's a simple change or too complex to do in the short term.
--- Jura 16:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I brought it up on the translators' board and apparently it had already been asked for other wikis. Can we attempt to test it, e.g. at https://test.wikidata.org ? Either it's a simple change or too complex to do in the short term.
Add a "new statement" link on top of the page
A user asks on wd:Bistro if there could be a "new statement" link ontop of the page, say in the beginning of the statement section. I'd also like such a link. Scrolling down all the way on page loading to add a statement on big items is a pain. author TomT0m / talk page 11:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- agree. The screen is getting way too long.
--- Jura 11:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)- On the one hand at the top would be good, but it also has a risk in it. To make certain your statement doesn't already exist, you need to scroll past all statements and with a link on the top you don't do that. Mbch331 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that already happens now that the page is rather long (at least to me).
--- Jura 16:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)- Yes, this happens whatever! Thierry Caro (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that already happens now that the page is rather long (at least to me).
- @Mbch331: Then there should be a warning if we try to add a value that already exists and/or a scroll (or another viz) to (of) the existing statements with the same property when the property is validated to the user. Not solving this problem is not a solution :) author TomT0m / talk page 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- If they can invent something to prevent duplicate values, than it's fine by me. But just moving it isn't a real solution, because it opens up a world of possible duplicate statements (especially from inexperienced users). Mbch331 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- it opens up a world of possible duplicate statements : sorry what ? what does it opens and how ? I really don't follow you. Can you quantify just how this is a problem ? It seems like a waaaaay secondary problems to me. As a person who already added a duplicate and removed it immediately, I can share my experience. I click on "add a statement", usually have a doubt, don't actually verify because it's too expensive to scroll and search, add the statement anyway and maybe remove it. What bothers me : sometimes the statement I just added does is not added to the page and I have to reload the page to see the result - a real annoying paper cut bug hope this is solved. Actually I prefer to add and hope when I click on "save" I'll be redirected to the statement to see if there is a ducplicate, and if so click on delete. Honestly the best thing you can do for beginners is to make their lives easier, not fearing their mistakes. A beginner might just not find the "add statement" button and run away. author TomT0m / talk page 10:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- What we probably need is a (horizontal) table of contents with e.g.:when there are such and such a number of property statements. --Izno (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- P31 (number form? language form?)
- P279
- etc.
- @Izno: I don't know if that horizontal table would help. For simple statements like P31/P279/dob, it could be of help, but for less simple statements like nominated for (P1411), it won't help. @TomT0m: As said before, I don't have anything against moving it, but there needs to be a way to prevent duplicate statements. I don't have numbers here. You check for duplicate statements if you doubt, but how many don't? Mbch331 (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with such problem presumption is that we possibly make the life of everybody impossible for a problem that ... may not exist at all. Why would not we try to solve problem one after the other ? author TomT0m / talk page 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The way to do a TOC, horizontal or otherwise, is a simple list of properties used on the item. No need to display any values or qualifiers, just the property as a link to the statement(s) using that property. e.g. Eltham Well Hall rail crash (Q5367803)'s TOC would be coordinate location (P625)·instance of (P31)·country (P17)·located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)·point in time (P585)·location (P276)·number of deaths (P1120)·number of injured (P1339)·investigated by (P1840)·has cause (P828)·has immediate cause (P1478)·start point (P1427)·destination point (P1444)·item operated (P121)·operator (P137)·Railways Archive event ID (P2478) (or maybe sorted by p number or interface language name). I have to agree with TomT0m though at wondering why duplicate statements are a blocker? Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 18:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with such problem presumption is that we possibly make the life of everybody impossible for a problem that ... may not exist at all. Why would not we try to solve problem one after the other ? author TomT0m / talk page 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- What we probably need is a (horizontal) table of contents with e.g.:
- it opens up a world of possible duplicate statements : sorry what ? what does it opens and how ? I really don't follow you. Can you quantify just how this is a problem ? It seems like a waaaaay secondary problems to me. As a person who already added a duplicate and removed it immediately, I can share my experience. I click on "add a statement", usually have a doubt, don't actually verify because it's too expensive to scroll and search, add the statement anyway and maybe remove it. What bothers me : sometimes the statement I just added does is not added to the page and I have to reload the page to see the result - a real annoying paper cut bug hope this is solved. Actually I prefer to add and hope when I click on "save" I'll be redirected to the statement to see if there is a ducplicate, and if so click on delete. Honestly the best thing you can do for beginners is to make their lives easier, not fearing their mistakes. A beginner might just not find the "add statement" button and run away. author TomT0m / talk page 10:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- If they can invent something to prevent duplicate values, than it's fine by me. But just moving it isn't a real solution, because it opens up a world of possible duplicate statements (especially from inexperienced users). Mbch331 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- On the one hand at the top would be good, but it also has a risk in it. To make certain your statement doesn't already exist, you need to scroll past all statements and with a link on the top you don't do that. Mbch331 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)