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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit

Should we certify Wikidata trainers?

[edit]

Many well-intentioned new users arrive at Wikidata without understanding how to contribute effectively. Nevertheless, they often jump straight into creating items. Some have no notion of notability and create items about themselves and their friends. Some don't know how to write descriptions or use aliases. Some don't know how to add claims. Some don't realise that they're expected to respond to feedback. These new users can be coached and corrected individually, but it would be more efficient if we could somehow educate them before they started editing.

Many of these users are first introduced to Wikidata through training sessions and editathons, often funded by WMF grants. I have reviewed numerous grant applications on Meta, selecting those related to Wikidata, identifying the editors involved, and assessing their Wikidata edit history. Some trainers are clearly qualified, but many lack experience or have a history of problematic editing. The WMF does not appear to conduct a thorough review of grantee qualifications. In some cases, grants have been approved even when applicants demonstrate a lack of Wikidata experience or a pattern of problematic editing. A result of this is that WMF funds may inadvertently create extra work for project volunteers.

I have interacted with users who claim to be certified trainers, but there is no clear way to verify their credentials or determine the criteria. When I have been able to obtain details, it seems to mean that they sat through a slideshow. Wikidata trainers should be experienced editors who have demonstrated a mastery of best practices. I therefore propose a lightweight community process to certify Wikidata trainers, improving the quality of Wikidata training, while also assisting WMF staff in evaluating grant proposals.

  1. New user group "trainer" managed via Request for Permissions. This group need not be associated with any actual permissions.
  2. The criteria for "trainer" are based on their contributions here:
    1. Substantial (TBD) experience editing Wikidata
    2. Conformance to project policies and guidelines, especially notability
    3. Appropriate response to feedback
  3. To prevent unnecessary clean-up work for volunteers, the community expects the WMF to ensure that any grant-funded program introducing new editors to Wikidata includes at least one certified trainer. Grantees are expected either to recruit a certified trainer or apply for certification themselves.

Related discussions and resources: meta:Wikimedia Conference 2018/Program/41, Wikidata:Train the trainers, Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2023/12#Wikidata-related_grant_proposals, commons:Commons:OpenRefine/Train-the-trainer program 2023-24, Wikidata:Open Online Course, commons:File:2022-12-02 Formation Wikidata 3 heures.pdf, Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2018/07#Using_English_Wikipedia_as_a_reference_url, Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2024/02#All_the_participants_of_an_editathon_blocked, meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Misuse_of_grant_funds, Wikidata:Event Organizers

Bovlb (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking valuable time to review grant applications for editathons and similar. I think you pretty much confirm what some of us have suspected that some arrangers are way better at writing the grant applications than teaching others the basics of Wikidata. The participants will have items deleted or worse, so they will have a bad first time experience and will likely never come back. And existing voluntairs will have to do the clean up.
I see two viable solutions. Stop giving grants that cover anything other than direct expenses for editathons to do away with the perverse incentive. A formal vetting procedure should be established. This should be a clear and simple set of requirements to make it fast to assess candidates. I basically agree with your suggestions. Experience could be boiled down to having 1000 manual edits on Wikidata. They don't have to read all the policies, just the most important ones and they should have read pretty much all of the help pages. When you say "Wikidata trainer" I'm assuming you mean event organizers should be explicitly told not to let participants edit on Wikidata unless they have demonstrated the necessary know how? This might include people who are organizing Wikipedia-only events.
Permissions can include the permission to bulk-create new users, as we want to avoid editathon participants editing with similar IP addresses and be perceived as socks. Infrastruktur (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support.
While I share your concerns, I don't think it is within our power here to eliminate perverse incentives from WMF grants. I also don't think we can exercise fine-grained control over what happens in local meetings.
The recurring scenario seems to be when people who don't know how to contribute to Wikidata attempt to train others, they will reproduce their own problems. My hope is that simply by ensuring someone involved knows what they're doing, we will naturally eliminate many problems of this type. I realise that this proposal will not solve all problems in this area, but it seems like a small concrete step we can take, that could have a significant benefit. I raised this issue with the board of trustees, and was told that they are trying to do better at qualifying grant proposals. Providing a credential and making that a pre-requisite should make it easier for WMF staff to do that job.
I accept your point about bulk-creation of new users, and note the existing Wikidata:Account creators user group. Bovlb (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we do control what goes on on Wikidata and don't control what the WMF is doing when it comes to grant appplication solving the issue with a user right at Wikidata seems to be a good idea. That leaves the question open about whether to use an existing right or a new one.
Are there people who need the Event Organizer right and that we would trust with that right that we don't trust to be trainers? The same goes for the account creator right. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 04:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to reusing an existing user group, but Event Organizer has very different criteria. Looking at the 8 current holders, I see that one has only 646 edits, despite holding this right since November. I wouldn't want to make it harder to get permission to use the CampaignEvents extension because we had added three major criteria. The other candidate user group is Account Creator, which might also be needed by trainers. This group has no published criteria and no non-bot holders. I proposed a new group because I wanted the purpose of the group to be crystal clear. Bovlb (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It looks like that one low-edit rights holder may be an alt account for a WMDE staff member. All the others holders of Event Organizer have large numbers of edits. Bovlb (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responses have been few, but positive, with two specific suggestions:
  • Use 1,000 manual edits as a threshold for experience
  • Re-use an existing user group, such as Event Organizer.
Bovlb (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the initial proposal Bovlb and also the last message (1000 manual edits as threshold and re-using an existing user group), assuring events don't add cleanup for the community is surely desirable. Epìdosis 19:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existing "Event Organizer" criteria include either receiving a grant or having experience in organizing an event. This would be an issue for this proposal as we would like to require trainer certification before doing either. Bovlb (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, we don't even need a specific user group, it could even be a list editable only by admins, like how enwiki handles AWB access, if trainers do not need specific user rights. I feel re-using an existing group can cause confusion in the future if we decide to use it more, and I'm not sure sysadmins will be too happy to add a user group that (from a technical/wiki access POV) does nothing.
I'm definitely in favour of having some certification process. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Advantages of having it be a user group include that it shows up on the global accounts page, and there's a clear log of it being granted (and revoked). There's some precedent for having single-project user groups, but less for user groups with no associated interface rights. Bovlb (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sound like a user group that does nothing will be a sticking point. Bovlb (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are support for it he seems willing Trade (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he probably thought "user group" != "group of users". There is usually some technical reason for a user group to exist, if there isn't then a page with user names serves the same function. Although in this case I think it is more pragmatic to have a user group with no permissions. The reasons for this is improved visibility, makes it more "official", and it relates to permissions that aren't policed by the software but by humans. If we're going to be serious about this, the user group is the way to go IMO. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So where do we go from here? Everyone who has commented seems to be broadly in favour. Can we make this policy now? Should I create an RFC to establish the will of the community more clearly? Bovlb (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer an RfC: establishing an impactful policy just in WD:PC is a bit risky, since in the project chat there is a great number of discussions and it is difficult to follow it; a RfC has much more visibility. Epìdosis 22:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:Requests for comment/Trainers Bovlb (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

self-diagnosed

[edit]

Do we really want to include people's self-diagnosed conditions as part of Wikidata? I feel iffy about this--Trade (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a different name like "claimed" and/or possibly aggressive removals of instances that are not sourced to a statement by the person? Circeus (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or just get rid of them entirely Trade (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modelling the banning of a book

[edit]

Various jurisdictions ban and restrict books, movies and similar for various temporal periods. I'm looking for an example of how to model this. I was expecting to find it in Lolita (Q127149), but that doesn't seem to mention it's banning, despite it being covered multiple times in w:en:List_of_books_banned_by_governments. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find many examples, but a naive approach would be something like:
significant event (P793)
Normal rank banned book (Q65770793) edit
start time (P580) 1945-06-06
valid in place (P3005) Austria (Q40)
laws applied (P3014) Verbotsgesetz 1947 (Q571913)
0 references
add reference
add value
While applies to jurisdiction (P1001) and legislated by (P467) could be used, I think it would be redundant with those statements being on the law. If a agency applies a law, it could possible be modeled with authority (P797). Ainali (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ainali, I have created One for the gods (Q132218611), which in New Zealand has been censored in two ways, a complete ban and and R18 restriction. I've managed to articulate everything but this difference between the two time ranges. I'm using censorship (Q543) rather than banned book (Q65770793) or something else, because at least in New Zealand censorship is media-independent. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a qualifier object of statement has role (P3831) -> R18 (Q66813043) is at least a start even though it is not perfect. What were your thoughts on not going with valid in place (P3005) or authority (P797)? Ainali (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
applies to jurisdiction (P1001) seems better to me, because it's more specific than valid in place (P3005). I have in mind Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Q22765)/list of prohibited books by the Russian Orthodox Church (Q64620541) which apply to all members of the church, where ever they are. authority (P797) seems less clear in cases such as this than participant (P710), because in New Zealand (and I believe in the case of Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Q22765)) different parties decide on the censorship classification and enforce breaches. authority (P797) implies enforcement to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a statement to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Q1768303). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking authority (P797) since we were talking about laws before. And if it is not enforced, is it really a ban or not more of a (non-)recommendation?
Separately, I thought censorship (Q543) was a term specifically used when made by a state, and thus wouldn't be the term to use when it is your random movement/organization trying to do a similar thing. Ainali (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with classifications

[edit]

Hello everyone, I'm reaching out for help on something I want to be working on. I'm a research chemist and I'd like to use wikidata to write a list of software used in chemistry. Moreover, it would be very nice to classify the software according to what it is specifically used for.

For example, some software is used to only visualize molecular structures, other software is used to edit them and other ones are used to execute simulations or to compute quantum properties. Some software may cover several of these functionalities.

My aim is to enter the information in a structured way so that it is later simple to run a query asking for all the software which can be used to do a specific thing.

I have been doing the following: I noticed the entries "Chemistry Software" (Q4497736) instance of "Software Category" and "Molecule Editor" (Q1963488) subclass of "editor" already existed.

I went through several chemistry related software and added the statement instance of "Chemistry Software".

In "Molecule Editor" I added subclass of "Chemistry Software" and I added the entry "Molecular Dynamics Engine" (Q132189548) subclass of "Chemistry Software".

This works fairly fine to retrieve categorized software as I can structure a query retrieving exactly what I want, I just want to make sure this is the correct approach to do this.

I don't know whether it could be a problem, but this could potentially lead to the same item being instance of several subclasses of "Chemistry Software".

Let me know what you think about this and whether there are better ways to do this. You can go through my edits history to see what I did specifically. Davidoskky (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party opinion requested for Q8023931

[edit]

An IP address made a series of strange edits to Freedom Mobile (Q8023931) on February 6; some were productive, some were not. I attempted to clean up the edits, only to have my efforts reverted by the IP with the summary "nonsense". I've reverted back with a detailed edit summary explaining why, but I'd feel more comfortable if another editor took a look at the situation. BrownCat1023 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a well-known LTA, the so-called "Vodafone vandal", making disruptive edits on Wikidata for over five years. Since they are not able or willing to collaborate constructively, the best way is to get the item semi-protected and ask for a rangeblock of the IP. --Dorades (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I posted to the admin noticeboard at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Semi-protection request for Q8023931; however, no action was taken (probably because an earlier post reported the situation at Q8023931 as an "edit war", and the page was temporarily fully protected in response). The IP is apparently now on a new address based on recent edits to Q10711016. *shrug* BrownCat1023 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I share this experience from a few years back when I was more active in counter vandalism. It is tortuous to check all their edits and they don't seem to be problematic at a first glance. Their first registered account, as far as I now, was GM-27IT (see the related sock puppet category on it.wp), if that's of interest to you. --Dorades (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the added info. Their disruptive style of editing has spread to many other pages, and as such I filed a new report at WD:AN#Series of disruptive edits to European subjects. BrownCat1023 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting a wikidata integration

[edit]

Alma (Q25498553) is a library software system mainly used by larger research libraries and consortia. British Library (Q23308) recently selected it as their new system. I recently proposed a new Alma feature, which basically boils down to an integration between their 'sets' functionality and wikidata. See https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/49470473-linked-data-powered-sets-and-collections and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Stuartyeates/PeopleForBookDisplays Note that much of this is built around Library of Congress authority ID (P244)/VIAF cluster ID (P214)/ORCID iD (P496) which are library-land identifiers for people. Hints, suggestions, corrections and work on the coverage of those properties greatly appreciated. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunker website blocked by spam filter

[edit]

I was adding the URL for an entry for pictures.nl/ Bunkerpictures, a website of bunker pictures (lots of lovely concrete corridors and machinery rooms), and got the addition blocked with 

The text you wanted to publish was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a forbidden external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: bunker pictures.nl

I've not come across the spam filter before, and surprised its messages don't link to more information, Where is it documented, and why doesn't it like bunkers?

(I had to split the 2 words to even allow me to ask the question here) Vicarage (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website is globally blacklisted. A local admin on meta wiki can fix it if you report it there. It looks like a serious site so it's dumb to block it. I'm guessing some of the pictures might contain symbols from the nazi-era. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For the benefit of others, you can appeal these blocks at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist, I wish they'd change their WD popups to make this clear, and that we'd add this to our help system. Vicarage (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References for vernacular names of taxa

[edit]

I can add a taxon common name (P1843) to a taxon with a citation with either a reference to a listed website by using stated in (P248), or citing a URL with reference URL (P854). What I can't find, is any way of citing a published textbook. Is that possible, please? Would it be possible to have a listing "stated in ISBN x-xx-xxxx-xxxx-x" or similar? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like the best solution here is to create a new item for the textbook (if one does not exist already) and use the textbook's item as the value for stated in (P248) M2Ys4U (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no string property on the model of author name string (P2093) or street address (P6375) that can be used for references. If an item doesn't exist, you have to manually "construct" the reference from the various properties used for describing published material: title (P1476), author (P50) etc. See the list of relevant properties. Circeus (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN and other properties can be used in a reference - Q17155#P825 and Q20063#P279. If there are likely to be several citations of a book, an item for the book would be useful then each reference would only need stated in (P248) and page(s) (P304). Peter James (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! MPF (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P13304

[edit]

Hello everyone. This is my first time trying to create a property, but I don't quite understand why PWBA.com player ID (P13304) doesn't generate a direct URL link, even though formatter URL (P1630) is filled in correctly. Could you help me figure out the issue? Mitte27 (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wait for about a day, the servers only update these URLs about once a day. Midleading (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was wondering the same about a different property added recently (by yourself) :) Tæppa (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement about proper pointing to Wikipedia articles

[edit]

See Pitkävuori ski jump ramp (Q3432204) and Pitkävuori (Q132349139) as well as User_talk:Alabasterstein#Pitkävuori. Could we kindly ask for a third opinion. Thanks! --Rießler (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any major problem. The article at fi wikipedia seems to be about the center and should therefore be linked to (the center) Pitkävuori (Q132349139). Meanwhile (the ramp) Pitkävuori ski jump ramp (Q3432204) links to redirect Pitkävuoren hyppyrimäki (= "of Pitkävuori ski jump ramp". No problem, wikidata works well even for topics not deserving an article. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tack! Thank you! There was another user with the same opinion in the linked user talk. For me, this issue is resolved. --Rießler (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #667

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2025-02-17. Missed the previous one? See issue #666

Discussions

  • Open request for CheckUser: Lymantria (RfP scheduled to end at 19 February 2025 04:22 UTC)
  • New request for comments: Anna's Archive - The RFC is about whether Wikidata should import and store metadata from Anna's Archive, considering legal, copyright, and technical challenges.

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Fedipol (Fediverse Activity Tracker) is a Wikidata-based tool used for tracking activity and analyzing accounts related to German political parties, institutions, and instances on the Fediverse.
  • OpenRefine 3.9.0 was released

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • Search: We are continuing the work on the improved search that lets you limit your search more easily to other entity types besides Items like Lexemes and Properties (phab:T321543)
  • RDF: We are working on aligning the RDF export to the Query Service prefixes (phab:T384344)

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

Are parts of non-WMF wikis in scope?

[edit]

Are technical parts (cat, template, module, namespace, ...) of non-WMF wikis notable and in scope? (see "Wikidata:Notability" and "Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria") If NOT then OpenStreetMap Wiki template (Q132459456) Fandom template (Q131521624) Template:Proposal page (Q114747627) Fandom templates category (Q115857727) should get deleted. Maybe non-WMF wikis should be mentioned in Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria. IMHO the complete wiki should be notable if it has an article on at least one wikipedia, but technical parts should not be. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related discussion on Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Bulk deletion request regarding LocationIQ map styles where I nominated some items related to OpenStreetMap. I think the general notability criteria apply to those as to every other item. @DaxServer, WiK14ot0g, Ms040got: --Dorades (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the question. What does it mean?
What is the outcome / effect of your question? (because you created the templates, and now you wanna delete it? What is their purpose?)
Thanks WiK14ot0g (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Matěj Suchánek @User:Lymantria @User:Wüstenspringmaus I created only one of those items, and this fact is not even relevant in the context. Indeed I do blunder occasionally, unlike you User:WiK14ot0g. What do you fail to understand? There exist some Q-items about technical parts (cat, template, module, namespace, ...) of non-WMF wikis. There are Q-items and properties about technical parts of WMF wikis, for example Wikimedia template (Q11266439). This is a crucial principal question whether technical parts of non-WMF wikis are notable, whether they should have Q-items, whether they should use ie link to the traditional Q-items and properties related to technical parts of wikis, so far used almost exclusively for WMF wikis. "Wikidata:Notability" does NOT give an obvious final answer. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By exclusion:
  1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, ...
    Non-WMF wikis cannot be linked by sitelinks.
  2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references.
    Outside the wikiprojects themselves, these templates and internal pages mean nothing.
  3. It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.
    I can hardly imagine structural need for items which are notable (other than the items we are discussing).
So, for me it is quite obvious the answer is "probably not".
Still, there is no problem in having a discussion about whether we want to support them anyways. Note that this would require an amendment to Wikidata:Notability/Items considered notable. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the 4 items OpenStreetMap Wiki template (Q132459456) Fandom template (Q131521624) Template:Proposal page (Q114747627) Fandom templates category (Q115857727) should get deleted. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chairperson

[edit]

Hi, can someone tell me if I correctly added Roman Solodarenko (Q132271086) as the chairperson of FC Kudrivka (Q120458868)? Thanks in advance! Myrealnamm (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I supposed to add Chairperson to FC Kudrivka, not the person? Myrealnamm (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it now. Myrealnamm (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a dedicated undeletion request page

[edit]

Considering the size of Wikidata and the number of items that gets deleted for notability reasons dont you think we can afford this?

It would much easier for everyone if we had them collected in one place instead of spread around a dozen of project pages and user talk pages Trade (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to (the essay) Guide to requests for undeletion, initial undeletion requests should be on the user talk page of either the appellant or or of the deleting admin, and final appeals should be on WD:AN. When we were developing those guidelines, we initially recommended that the user go straight to WD:AN, but this quickly led to that noticeboard being overwhelmed by repetitive walls of text, so we adopted a two-step approach. The initial conversation with the deleting admin not only gives them a chance to undelete the item quickly and efficiently, but it also gives the appellant an opportunity to develop an appeal that relates to our notability criteria. Frankly, in a lot of cases, editors seeking undeletion don't know how best to help themselves.
I'm not firmly opposed to a dedicated noticeboard, but I think the number of final appeals is fairly low, and I'm not sure it would be useful to move initial appeals to a central noticeboard. I think we need to be careful not to create too many different noticeboards when our core community is so small. Niche noticeboards tend to languish unattended.
If I understand correctly, the problem that you're trying to solve here is that you can't find the initial requests for undeletion. I'm not sure why this is a problem to be solved, but one possible approach would be similar to unblock requests, where we ask appellants to use a specific template that puts the request into a category. Bovlb (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is largely transparency. It's much harder for the Wikidata community to give their input on the undeletion request when no one but the creator and the deleting admin even know where the undeletion request is located meaning it's de facto hidden to most users
"but one possible approach would be similar to unblock requests, where we ask appellants to use a specific template that puts the request into a category" A template to put on the talk page of the creator or the deleting admin?
"but I think the number of final appeals is fairly low" Of course without having a dedicated page it's a bit hard to keep statistic off Trade (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm still struggling to grasp what transparency issue we're trying to solve here.
If someone appeals a deletion to the deleting admin and the item is undeleted, then I don't see any significant transparency issue. Are you concerned that there are items being deleted that should not have been, and that the problem is being covered over by quietly undeleting them on initial appeal?
If the initial appeal is rejected, then the appellant is free to make a final appeal on AN, which seems pretty transparent to me. I have a small concern that there might be users whose initial appeal is rejected but who never learn about the possibility of making a final appeal. Any admin receiving any message that sounds like an undeletion request should be pointing to the guide, and we should consider translating the guide into other languages. Bovlb (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links/IDs of full movies in YouTube

[edit]

It would be nice if the links (IDs) to full movies for free on youtube could be added to the items about the movies.
Looks like this "Popcornflix" account has many of them (and some are already integrated: example). I looked it up and there's a Wikipedia article about it: Popcornflix and the releases on that account seem like legal licensed releases. However, in that article it says On July 11, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved a conversion of the bankruptcy to Chapter 7, which would signal a liquidation of the company's assets, and the cessation of its subsidiaries, including Popcornflix. what does it mean for those films on YouTube? I mean it wouldn't be useful or worth the effort to link them if they soon get removed from YT.

There probably are some more YT accounts one could scan/query for links to add to Wikidata items, e.g. I'd like to link this documentary to this item but I'm not sure about whether this is an official release – it very much does seem so since the video has been up for long with 1.5 million views and the channel "PopNet" which has further full films has its own website. I guess one could also assume it's some legal licensed release if it's on YouTube or on YT for over x months but I still wanted to ask about it. Also if somebody has a list of youtube accounts with films, it would be nice if you could link it or those accounts so the links can be imported.

Background: Adding this data may be very useful in the future to potentially improve WikiFlix a lot which currently only shows films with the full video on Commons. So much so good but for films from 1930 or newer, YouTube has much more free films and this could be an UI to browse well-organized free films, including short films, in a UI dedicated to films and on the Web without having to install anything and using data in Wikidata, e.g. based on the genre. It could become one of the most useful and/or popular uses of Wikidata. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the YouTube video ID (P1651) not suitable for this? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is suitable – that's the property the IDs would be written to. This isn't a property proposal and not suggesting that one is made. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the one who made WikiFlix? Trade (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was made by Magnus Manske. I think it could become quite useful but for it to be useful and used in practice, it would need to also show films whose video is only on YouTube but not on Commons. I've just created this category on Commons which contains nearly all full films that are on Commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q99312

[edit]

Could we get some more eyes on Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q99312, please, especially German speakers? Articles for this subject have been deleted on many client projects. The item has nominated for deletion three times now, and the first two were keeps, but it keeps coming back. Item has also been subject to a lot of vandalism and blanking. Allegedly there are privacy issues, but it's unclear what they are. It would be good to see this one resolved one way or another. Bovlb (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same or not?

[edit]

Hi, can someone help me figure out if qualifier (Q65683410) and qualifier (Q1759450) are the same? Myrealnamm (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

qualifier (Q65683410) is essentially empty and unused. So is it safe to merge them, unless someone can read the text coming from the ONLY link at "Q65683410", and bothers to add some useful statements or description to that item ASAP. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put the text coming from the "pretty much empty" item into a translator. It seems to be talking about "qualifiers in passwords", so it seems like it (Q65683410) is something that can be something branched off of Q1759450, but is not strictly important. Is deleting Q65683410 a good idea? Myrealnamm (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Items with wikipedia redirect

[edit]

Hi everybody, what's the best way to merge two items, when one has a wikipedia redirect. United Nations Office for Project Services (Q2479975) -> United Nations Office for Project Services (Q2531088) in my case. Best NGOgo (WikiProject Nonprofits!) 07:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be about very same subject (this is the crucial question). Just remove the redirect from the item and merge. If the wikipedia page metions the item as it does in this case {{Wikidata-doorverwijzing|Q2479975}} then it must be removed there too. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Taylor 49 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NGOgo (WikiProject Nonprofits!) 15:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There seem to be a lot of new and anonymous users creating items related to Nigeria today without any regard for notability or other policies and guidelines. Presumably this arises from an editathon. Does any know how to find out what editathons are running on a specific date and how to get in touch with the organizers? Bovlb (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to a tip at meta:Talk:Programs_&_Events_Dashboard#Tracking_problem_editors_back_to_an_event, I may have tracked it down. Many of the users are not registered, and many are anon, but I found two from this event. The facilitators seem to be @Jerry minor and @Iwuala Lucy. Bovlb (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we'll be mass deleting all contributions by the following users associated with this event: @Samuelisobo$$1, @Valour44, @Chidi_Benita_Chioma, @Calculus44, @Nnicholass, @Dave2246, @Brighttimothy713 Bovlb (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good detective work. This just serves to illustrate why the suggestions in the thread Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_we_certify_Wikidata_trainers? should be implemented as a long-term solution. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Agbor_Success_Agbor, @Sar_Bless_Etukudo, @Dede_Confidence_Prince, @Williams014, @Dondavee. Bovlb (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2314093534"