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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit

deidetected.com, a self-published source potentially used for harassment

[edit]

This website launched and run by the creator of the "Sweet Baby Inc detected" Steam curator would fall under the definition of a self-published source on Wikipedia. The Steam curator has been linked to the harassment campaign against Sweet Baby Inc. by reputable sources like PC Gamer, The Verge, and multiple others.

Wikidata has a page for the website, with the website linked via the described at URL property, by User:Kirilloparma on more than one if not every occasion. Even within the scope of that source, it is done in a very targeted way in that the website seems to be added to the Wikidata pages only when the game is recommended against at deidetected.com (e.g. The First Descendant, Abathor, Valfaris: Mecha Therion recommended as "DEI FREE" by deidetected do not have the property set). Based on that, its goal of harassment or POV pushing appears to be evident.

Does Wikidata have any guidelines that would explicitly allow or disallow this behavior or the coverage of deidetected.com at all? Daisy Blue (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy on WD for blacklisting websites for other than malicious cases such as spam or malware Trade (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now from having read the property description for described at URL on its talk page, which explains that it's for "reliable external resources", I'm convinced the website has no place on Wikidata, as it's not a reliable source (at least not per the guidelines of Wikipedia (WP:RSSELF)). What is the best place to initiate its removal without having to start a potential edit war? A bot would also do a more efficient job at removing it from all the pages. Daisy Blue (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have more luck if you stopped bringing up Wikipedia guidelines and used the Wikidata ones instead Trade (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata itself cites the Wikipedia guidelines on self-published sources (and on original research). Daisy Blue (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia policy is im many cases useful to decide what should be done in Wikidata (e.g. which sources are reliable), but should never be considered normative and have no more authoritativeness than policies in any other project. GZWDer (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we are discussing this now so based on this we are creating the guidelines now I'm assuming, or working on something that could one day contribute to guidelines?
It will all come down to going forward learning anything we can with those who participate here...how we develop ourselves not just attempting to change opinion of others because maybe even we don't have a very clear opinion yet. It all comes down to the details. Speaking generally may harm the entire conversation and may lead to an abrupt halt in any sort of progress being made.
I suggest we make this as "hands on" as we can discussing real examples rather than a generalized thing. Let me be the first or among the first people to act as I suggest, so I started looking at this one game...
I just took a look at Alan Wake 2 being archived by the wayback machine on deidetected.com 2024 September 20 this year(I provide the link here).
I took a look at it. It looks like they give a link to another page on the internet archive to sweetbabyinc.com. I visited it on sweetbabyinc.com, I used mouse over to see the text they quoted, when taking my mouse over "Alan Wake II", on deidetected this is the text I saw, correct me if I'm wrong:
> We worked on:
> Character Arc, Voice, and Sensitivity Reading.
Is there anything on that page which you find disrespectful or hateful? Does the archived page differ from the live page? If you find anything on that page or other pages please quote/cite them so we can continue this discussion. Anything else that you find relevant please add that as well.
web.archive.org/web/20240920235143/ deidetected.com/games/alan-wake-2 [full link redacted because of the spam filter but you can modify your link to work with this]
I also posted on your talk page suggesting we can go even further and create a learning resource on Wikiversity to pool resources, could lead to a greater understanding for all of us. Also if you don't want to continue the conversation on your talk page you can continue it here, I don't mind. Any progress in my view is still progress. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than enough reliable sources that explicitly connect Sweet Baby Inc detected (and thus its website) to a harassment campaign, with some of its members having openly described it as Gamergate 2.0. Citing just one of the more palatable pages and disconnecting it from the context does not tell the full story at all. For one, even the name of the website is misleading because the companies and people it targets are not necessarily DEI-related. Then if you look strictly at the first-party statements without even involving the more reliable third-party sources, DEI is used as an umbrella term for everything deemed undesireable by its creator, like "forced diversity, virtue signaling, self-insertions, (woke) political agenda being forced down the player's throat, a bunch of alphabet people and they/thems" (from the Dustborn page), or simply "bullshit" on occasion (see the first snapshot of the website on the Web Archive). The creator says that "DEI must DIE" and uses words like "next target" in relation to the games to be covered on the website (as seen in the "Taking the DEIDetection to the next level" post, which is the latest on the website as of this writing). Daisy Blue (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that nobody added the deidetected property to Life is Strange: Double Exposure (Q126464545) which is probably for the better because what I witnessed on the archived page(Wayback Machine) of the date 2024-10-01 is that it's not describing only the game(not actually describing the game at all, rather just quoting what sweet baby inc worked on) but it is also describing a single developer, it looks like they are taking much more time describing a single developer rather than focusing on the game at all.
DEI detected where? They find personal info on the developer and put it there without context or explanation, it doesn't matter if it was already public information.
This looks more like a "temporary data dump" than something that was planned. I also checked just now the latest version of the page. Nothing has changed since October 1!
It's important to assume good faith. We are all volunteers, if a mistake was made lets not focus on people, let's focus on the things we worked on and are gonna work on. Adding the property happened, similarly deleting the property can happen just as well without any drama.
I think the property should be nominated for deletion, you can disagree with me. I can relate to having your work deleted: I didn't feel good when some Steam games I created on Wikidata got deleted, it happened, I stopped editing for some time but later I focused more on what I really want and what is most worth my time and my interests. Nobody forces anybody to care about anything. We should assume good faith that people really tried to contribute and if they didn't lets not attack people, the way deidetected singled out this 1 developer instead of adding any original content about the game at all. We are better than this. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not allowed to provide the link for the evidence but just look up the identifier "life-is-strange-double-exposure" on a search engine. I tried as good as I could, I could not make duck duck go make the link turn up. Google works if you type this in the search engine, at least on my side: "life-is-strange-double-exposure site:deidetected.com".
Copy that link, put it inside the Wayback Machine and just find various dates. Compare them...you will see that the page is mostly unchanged and has mostly or exactly the same content. The spamfilter is probably right in blocking links cause I can just explain how you will find what I consider my material that I provide. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be used to mass undo 18 of the edits that introduced the links, but it's not progressing for me when trying. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a low-quality, private website that doesn't seem to add anything of value to our items. There are countless websites out there, but we generally don't add every single site via described at URL (P973) just for simply existing. IIRC, there were various cases in the past where users added unreliable websites to lots of items, that were then considered spam and deleted accordingly. And if the site's primary purpose is indeed purely malicious and causing harassment, there's really no point in keeping it. Best to simply put it on the spam blacklist and keep the whole culture war nonsense out of serious projects like Wikidata. Additionally, DEIDetected (Q126365310) currently has zero sources indicating a clear lack of notability. --2A02:810B:5C0:1F84:45A2:7410:158A:615B 13:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already nominated that and Sweet Baby Inc detected for deletion citing the same reason, though specifically for the curator, one could stretch point 2 of Wikidata:Notability to argue against it, but I'm not sure what value it would bring to the project apart from enabling harassment and its use to justify any other related additions. Daisy Blue (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just add this website to the spam blacklist, no one will be able to add links to this website on Wikimedia projects anymore. Midleading (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the proper venue for proposing that? Also, seeing how you have a bot, could you suggest a quick way to mass remove the remaining instances from Wikidata? I've already undone a number by hand but it's not the greatest experience. Having the knowledge may also help in the future. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the home page of Meta-Wiki, click Spam blacklist, and follow instructions there.
To clean up links to this website, I recommend External links search. A WDQS search is likely to time out. I also recommend reviewing each case manually, sometimes the item should be nominated for deletion, but tools can't do that. Midleading (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll remove the rest by hand then. As for the Wikimedia spam blacklist, it says that "Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist". I'm not sure if there have been any attempts to cite deidetected on Wikipedia or elsewhere. We can search for the live references (there are none) but not through the potential reverted edits, I don't think. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may request this website be banned on Wikipedia first, then you may find some users who agree with you. Midleading (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Wikipedia has the same policy in that if it hasn't been abused (and I wouldn't know if it has been specifically on Wikipedia), then there is no reason to block it. On Wikidata, as it stands now, the additions come from one user, Kirilloparma, who pushed back on my removals here but hasn't reverted. Unless it becomes a sustained effort by multiple users, it will come down to whether Kirilloparma concedes that described at URL is for reliable sources and the website is not a reliable source. Daisy Blue (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason Kirilloparma keeps making points on the subject on the Requests for deletions page rather than here (despite having been informed), now arguing that the short property description takes precedence over the property documentation on the talk page, which is dismissed as "outdated". Daisy Blue (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find specific examples of harassment. We need to find evidence, if you want to collaborate on an etherpad (Wikimedia got one!) we can make notes there live and freely since etherpad is not covered by the spam filter as it is here, allowing us to provide fully functioning links. Etherpad may also be used as an indicator where we can see if this topic is too controversial even for us to discuss, that may be evidence that this topic needs further attention.
Etherpad does not support registration so anyone can edit any page, yet I find many pages I've worked on to have never been touched there.
Wikimedia Foundation's Etherpad (Q38112454) should have the link for the Wikimedia Etherpad. I created the page today called deidetected.
I created that page today and each page on etherpad also has edit history even though it is harder to watch the edit history the more edits that are made. As a technology I love how easy it is to use etherpad.
At the same time anyone being able to edit on etherpad means that our skin needs to be "dragon skin" thick and we should not let ourselves be hurt by anything. I hope that anyone here using etherpad will be of good and not a waste of anyone's time. I have the experience of editing etherpad pages while others where actively editing their own part in the page, live. I think etherpad is vastly underused and deserves more attention as a useful brainstorming tool.
Though if you have clashed with someone already here maybe its likely that the same clash will happen on etherpad but maybe you will learn of the other's viewpoint very fast, you will also learn if they can adapt to other people's viewpoints. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata has items for many websites even if those websites are worthy of criticism. Knowing that "Sweet Baby Inc detected" is linked to "DeiDetected" is useful information even if both of those sources would be completely unreliable.
I don't see any use of links to deidetected.com within Wikidata where it's used for the purpose of harassement which would justify putting it on a blacklist. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of that website is to incite harassment, so intentionally linking to it within Wkkidata directly contributes to that problem. --2A02:810B:5C0:1F84:2836:F2FD:EE77:CF71 19:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Quite frankly, your comment is insensitive and I agree with the IP. Note that the OP did say that the only edits adding them have been to "recommended against" games' items, so your point does not stand I'm afraid. Other than information on the sites themselves, we really should not provide "described at" claims linking them to people. Such is arguably a gross violation of Wikidata:Living people.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of Wikidata:Living people do you believe is violated here and by which edits?
Instead of focusing on what the OP said, why don't you look yourself to get an impression of what we talk about?
The OP asked for the item to be deleted. Currently DEIDetected (Q126365310) does link to Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722). The described at URL (P973) claims on Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722) seem to me like the go to relatively neutral sources like Wired saying things like "Although early efforts began on sites like notorious harassment hub Kiwi Farms last year, much of the misinformation about Sweet Baby has coalesced around Sweet Baby Inc Detected, a Steam curation group that bills itself as “a tracker for games involved with” the company." ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose the existence of these items and the existing claims you quoted. It is when these claims are added to particular games' items that it begins to create problems for the game's developers by inviting harassment targeted around their alleged ties to Sweet Baby and other organizations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If deidetected would dox individual employees, that would be a privacy violation. Saying that a particular company was consulting another company for developing a product is not a violation of the privacy of individual people. Boycott of commercial products like games based on political justifications, is not something that the living people policy is intended to prevent. Using the word "harrassement" for it, does not mean it's the same as actions against individuals.
That said, we do have discussions over whether to add properties for external sources to require consensus to sources to all entries of a website and using described at URL (P973) as a workaround because there's no property for an individual website is generally a bad idea. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma: Please do not reintroduce any of these links in the future. Doing so is a violation of Wikidata:Living people on the grounds of privacy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That policy is about living people, not companies. As far as i can tell none of the entries even names any living persons in the first place Trade (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy touches on groups as well, with emphasis on small groups. Sweet Baby Inc. consists of only 16 people. Some of the targeted games were made by as many or fewer (e.g. Sable, Neo Cab). Moreover, the website absolutely names living individuals, as exemplified by its page on Life is Strange: Double Exposure. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly block-listed the domain on Wikidata. In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation DEI principles, linking a low-quality harassment site in a way that causes LP violations is not appropriate. Exceptions, such as for items on articles covering the site, can be handled using edit requests. I request that the blacklisting stand unless an explicit consensus rises against it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since my username keeps appearing in this thread and I'm being accused of things, I think I'll comment in detail and answer questions early/mid next week. There's a lot to talk about, especially since the user who started this thread, while I was away, is deleting everything related to this video game database (recent disruptive edits where the user deleted quite valid sources [1], [2], [3], [4]), which would be useful for structured data. For instance database provides information about the developers and publishers for a particular game and this fact is completely omitted here, anyway I will comment on everything here soon. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are already aware of the reasoning, but for those unaware, see the talk on Requests for deletions as well as my argumentation on the talk page for DEIDetected that came with those edits. It is unfortunate that edit summaries aren't a thing on here. Daisy Blue (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That link does not work "Requests for deletions". Please provide a new one. I suggest you use a permalink. If you need help how to get a permalink I will provide you with assistance. Just ask and I'll help you. We are all volunteers here. We have everything to gain by working together.
    What do you mean edit summaries aren't a thing? For every edit we can add a summary if we want. I'm editing from the web on my computer and I can add summaries. You cannot? I actually see your edit summaries. Maybe you meant something else? SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kirilloparma if we see a database as a good source for a category of items, the usual process we use at Wikidata is to make a property proposal for an external ID to the given website. That way a consensus can be found, whether we want to use a given database in this way.
    Process-wise this has the advantage that consenus is found about what sources we want to use in this way. Practically, listing all the database in the Identifiers section as benefits as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: The point is that this database is relatively new and has a total of a little more than 50 identifiers, which is basically quite low for a separate property. That's why it was decided to use described at URL (P973) until the database is filled with new IDs and only then to propose a separate property for it (it was planned that as soon as a property was created, a dedicated autofix would be added, which would leave only external IDs and remove all P973 statements, see for example how it was done for WiiG [5], [6]). Perhaps choosing to use P973 here wasn't the best idea and it would have been better to replace it with another suitable property exact match (P2888)? Anyways, in this context P973 was used to keep track of identifiers, but user Daisy Blue reverted all of them for his own personal reasons (an example of such edit) and now there is nothing left. As long as the identifiers are replenished, it was possible to use this database as a source. Here is an example:
Psychroma (Q130249258)
developer
Normal rank Rocket Adrift edit
1 reference
reference URL https:// deidetected.com/games/psychroma
stated in DEIDetected (Q126365310)
retrieved 24 October 2024
add reference


add value
↑ This is exactly what I had in mind for the usefulness of this video game database.
However, the decision to use this database is clearly not appreciated by the user who started this thread, who for their own personal reasons is deleting everything related to it. Just look at the recent disruptive edits (see [7], [8], [9], [10]); the attempted deletion of a simple logo on Commons, which is in perfect order; reverting my valid edits (see screenshot); deleting even reliable sources [11], [12], etc. In the deletion request I have repeatedly proposed solutions to the user, including replacing described at URL (P973) with exact match (P2888) if the first property is disliked so much, but all this has been ignored, the user is in no mood for dialog and continues to persistently delete everything related to this database. I have repeatedly reminded this user that disagreement with a source is not a valid reason to remove it from Wikidata, because Wikidata doesn't work that way and we consider any source that may be useful, but again the user just keeps deleting everything he disagrees with.
I see by the way that now the database has even been blacklisted (I absolutely disagree with this, as we consider any source that can be useful, including for structural purposes) and I am being accused of everything possible, even though I did nothing and just used a video game database that I found more than useful, especially since it is important for video game culture in general. Blaming me just because I decided to use what I thought was a useful database is not reasonable. It's also quite interesting to see how I'm even called an offender here, while the user who started this thread is the one who is not following the Wikidata policies and guidelines. For instance, not so long ago this user changed the description added by @Trade to this item and replaced it with another one, which cannot be called neutral in any way and directly contradicts the Help:Description guidelines (more precisely Help:Description#Avoid opinionated, biased or promotional wording, Help:Description#Avoid controversial claims). See also other examples I mentioned above.
What is described here by Daisy Blue in this thread that this is the website (if we are talking about a website) that is used for alleged harassment is absolutely not true. The source I added (see Special:Diff/2248704677) says the exact opposite. According to the creator of the website: “The DEIDetected has the goal of bringing consumer awareness by letting people know what games have DEI ideology implementend in their development cycle as well as how it affects our culture as a whole.”. And this is a very important point. By the way, this source (as well others) was removed (and I'm not surprised at all) simply because Daisy Blue thinks it's not reliable due to the author of the article (?), although on Wikidata we don't evaluate sources based on article authors (this fact I repeatedly emphasized in the deletion request, see some screenshots from that discussion [13], [14], [15]), we add any independent sources using common sense (see what Daisy Blue wrote here, to justify the removal of sources. When it comes to sources, this user follows the English Wikipedia policies, so the user thinks that Wikidata has the same strict source requirements as enwiki, which is absolutely not. The sources I have provided are independent and exactly describe the subject in question). Just a quick note: I understand when we need sources for human's notability, here I can agree that they should be more demanding, but when we are talking about a website (!) such strict requirements as in enwiki are clearly excessive and completely unreasonable.
Blacklisting this database here is clearly wrong, knowing perfectly well that Wikidata often lacks sources, especially in such a highly specialized field as video games! Just this year alone I have seen various important gaming media outlets such as Game Informer (Q27197) or TouchArcade (Q25389197) being shut down in front of my eyes (also the closure of useful databases such as Citra or Xbox Games Store for X360) and I am obviously sad that we are losing such databases or better to say sources. For video games, every database counts, and here we are seeing the cover-up of important sources that are also connected to video game culture... I don't even know what to say.
I'll add more of my thoughts (part 2) on this topic in a couple of days. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma: Harassment concerns preempt all of what you're saying. Also, this database is of questionable reliability for the information you describe as it is based on doxing by its very nature. What the website says about itself has no bearing on what it is. It could claim to be "the best website in the world" and that would mean nothing. "Every database counts" is not a sustainable argument, because anyone anywhere can make a database and there'd be no indication of its reliability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be discussed here. I think we need to create a project on Wikiversity to identify each subject separately. Also you are linking to a user who got a lot of link rot in their links. This is not practical at all, it becomes too tedious to follow if people have too much link rot and don't use permalinks. Not worth anybody's time. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your arguments are the same as previously made on Requests for deletions, with all of them addressed by me on that page as well. The one on the Sweet Baby Inc detected description is a new one, but my edit reflected what all the reliable sources say about the group. If that's not acceptable, then we should also update many other item descriptions, like those for Kiwi Farms ("online forum for organised trolling, harassment and stalking"), InfoWars ("American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones"), Ku Klux Klan ("American white supremacist terrorist hate group"), Proud Boys ("North American neo-fascist organization"), Gamergate ("mostly-online harassment campaign originally targeting both reviewers and designers in the video game industry"), Westboro Baptist Church ("American hyper-Calvinist church congregation and hate group") and presumably many others.
PS. I'm not a he. Daisy Blue (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma part of what Wikidata is about is having discussions to find consensus. While, I wouldn't have added the website to the blacklist the way Jasper did, that's not something I want to fight about. I think the proper way forward would be to go through a request for a property to find consensus about whether this is a database from which we want to import information.
@Daisy Blue It's interesting how easily you swith your position from there aren't reliable sources about X so it's not notable to having a particular view about what reliable sources have to say about X.
Descriptions on Wikidata are not places to just repeat what reliable sources say. They are supposed to reflect the information on the statements of the item in a neutral way. Our living people policy says here "Labels, descriptions and aliases need to be neutral and well-sourced (ideally based on referenced statements on the item) and particular care should be taken in editing these for items about living people. Derogatory names, even when used in reliable public sources, should not be added as aliases. Descriptions should focus on facts, not opinions."
I think it's debatable whether or not calling the Westboro Baptist Church a hate group a neutral description but at least it's actually backed up by a sourced statement on the item. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever argued that the sources related specifically to Sweet Baby Inc detected aren't reliable. My nomination for its deletion was my first nomination and came from a flawed understanding of the Notability guidelines. As you will find at the diff, in my reasoning for the nomination, I referred strictly to the absence of wiki links (criterion 1) rather than criterion 2, which is on "serious and publicly available references". With the help of Jasper's comment, I realized that meeting either of the Notability criteria is enough, so I made contributions to the item content and withdrew the request.
My position on the lack of serious and publicly available references related specifically to DEIDetected hasn't changed and I don't think it deserves to be a standalone item. It's merely the website of the aforementioned group. I'd argue that the separation is artificial and you contributed to it today. It absolutely is an alias of Sweet Baby Inc detected, as seen in its curator group URL or its logo.
On the description, strictly speaking, even describing someone as a criminal (of which there are plenty examples here) is loaded. It's neutral or free of bias only from the perspective that it reflects a legal conclusion or that of trustworthy sources rather than the opinion of a Wikidata editor. The same is true for Sweet Baby Inc detected, which links to seven articles that describe it, at least six of which relate it to a harassment or hate campaign. Daisy Blue (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are spiling (Q17126694) and bank revetment (Q2282104) about the same subject?

[edit]

Can spiling (Q17126694) and bank revetment (Q2282104) be merged? Are they about the same subject? I am a non-native English speaker and Google Translate doesn't help. If they cannot be merged: what are the differences? JopkeB (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give ChatGPT or Claude the text of the Wikipedia articles and ask it whether the topic is the same or there are differences. ChatGPT knows all the relevant languages while we don't. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ChristianKl for the suggestion (very good one, I'll use it more often when I have trouble to find the English equivalent for a Dutch word). Outcome: no they are not the same.
  • "Spiling" in English generally refers to the process of creating curves or patterns in shipbuilding or woodworking. It’s a technique used to transfer curves or shapes onto materials like wood. [My comment: then the description in Wikidata differs from the generally meaning in English according to ChatGPT.]
  • "Beschoeiing" in Dutch, however, refers to bank protection or revetment — a method used to reinforce and protect the edges of waterways, ditches, or canals, typically with wood, concrete, or metal to prevent erosion. [My comment: That seems correct to me. So I should use revetment (Q3742014).]
JopkeB (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't just use the label when asking ChatGPT. spiling (Q17126694) is not about shipbuilding or woodworking. It's better to use the start of the Wikipedia articles so that ChatGPT has the context. ChatGPT says:
The main difference between spiling and beschoeiing lies in their materials, purposes, and methods, though both are used for protecting riverbanks or shores.
Spiling:
Material: Primarily uses willow rods and posts that are woven together. The willow rods are typically live and root into the soil, promoting natural stabilization.
Purpose: A technique to prevent erosion of river and stream banks through natural and sustainable means, allowing the willow to grow and reinforce the bank over time.
Method: Living willow posts are driven into the bank and woven with rods. Additional measures, like stones or wooden planks, may be used to prevent undercutting. This is considered a form of soft engineering.
Context: Popular in the UK, this method encourages growth and is more environmentally friendly, used especially in temperate regions. It works best during the dormant winter season.
Beschoeiing:
Material: Can be made from wood, concrete, recycled plastic, or steel. Historically, hardwood (often tropical) has been used, though there is opposition to this due to environmental concerns. Newer materials like recycled plastic or fiberglass-reinforced concrete are becoming more common.
Purpose: A structural solution to protect shores, riverbanks, or construction sites from erosion, wave forces, or other threats to stability. It is used in both natural settings (like riverbanks) and construction settings (such as dry excavations).
Method: Posts (wood or steel) are driven into the ground, with sheets or planks (plastic, concrete, or wood) fixed between them. In deeper canals or construction zones, this might take the form of retaining walls.
Context: Used in civil engineering and construction sectors, beschoeiing is a more industrial or engineered approach compared to spiling and can involve more rigid materials to handle deeper or higher walls.
In summary, spiling is a more ecological and flexible method often used in natural environments, while beschoeiing is a more engineered solution that uses industrial materials for erosion control or construction support. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ChristianKl: for your answer. Can the conclusion also be that Spiling is a subclass of Beschoeiing/bank revetment? JopkeB (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked ChatGPT, and it would say yes, it's a subclass. In a case like this, where you first give ChatGPT the relevant information (through the text from the Wikipedia articles) it's a question that you can ask ChatGPT directly. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions:

  1. No, they cannot be merged.
  2. spiling (Q17126694) is a subclass of bank revetment (Q2282104).

I'll make the canges in Wikidata (as well as in Commons). --JopkeB (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes in Wikidata were already be ✓ Done by ChristianKl, thanks! JopkeB (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about notability criteria in Wikidata:Notability

[edit]

Per Wikidata:Notability an item is notable if meets at least one of the three notability criteria. I'm not going to cover the whole thing here, but according to point two an item is notable if "it refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." Whereas point three says an item is notable if "it fulfills a structural need."

I understand the spirit behind both of those criteria but There seems to be issues when people create unreferenced items for things simply because said items fulfill a structural purpose. To give an example, there's upwards of a thousand items for "fictional universes" that seem to be notable simply because they fulfill a structural need for fictional universe (Q559618). Even though the items aren't referenced to anything what-so-ever. So my question is, can an item meet the notability guidelines simply because it meets a structural need even if it isn't an instance of a clearly identifiable concept described using serious and publicly available references? Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Wikidata "a thousand items" is a relatively insignificant amount of items.
In this case, the items we have for fictional universe (Q559618) generally exist because there are entities in that fictional universe that are notable. If you take for example the fictional planet Tschai (Q929640) itself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If entities in a universe are notable and can be described with sources, that generally means that there are also sources that describe the universe itself.
Note, that we don't have a "fictional universe for this book" property. As a result just because a book is notable, the fictional universe in which that book is set isn't automatically notable under (2). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic starter forgot to mention Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_universes#Notability_criteria_for_fictional_universes. Multichill (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a "fictional universe for this book" property: takes place in fictional universe (P1434). A fictional entity would only produce a structural need for an item representing the universe it appears in if it was required for a fictional entity to have a from narrative universe (P1080) statement. This is (currently) not the case: it is completely ok for a character or entity not to have a from narrative universe (P1080) statement. We have present in work (P1441) to link to the work and this is in most cases sufficient. There is currently the question if two works set in the same universe that are not part of a bigger work (e.g. being from the same series) produce a structural need for a fictional universe. Multichill already provided a link to the discussion. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with fictional universes is one example of many. It's not the sole or only reason I asked the question though and I would like an answer regardless of the property being discussed somewhere else. Otherwise it just seems like deflecting from the overall question. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: I didn't forget the mention the conversation. It's a more general question outside of fictional universes. that was just one example of many. Thanks for derailing this by making it about that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
short answer from me too. Yes. --Zache (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: I'm not really sure I follow you. Are you saying it doesn't matter if Wikidata:Notability is met for items having to do with fictional universes or if they aren't sourced to anything because the overall number of them is relatively low? Aside from that I'm not really sure what your point is about the fictional universes generally existing. To give another example besides fictional universes, people exist. But it doesn't mean every single person on the planet is inherently notable or worthy of having a Wikidata correct? I assume an item for any given person would still need to sourced to something instead of just providing a structural need for human (Q5) or some other item. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "exist" in the context of items existing in Wikidata. I have not made any claims about how fictional universe might exist or not exist, and that's also not a question that matters given that exist is not a word used in our notability criteria.
We have items in Wikidata because it's useful for us to have them. In the case of items for fictional universes, that usefulness is about being able to make statements that link items about different entities in a fictional universe together to a common universe. The "structural need" criterium is about allowing us to have items for a purpose like that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. That's how it meant it to. I could really care less if fictional universes exist as a concept. That's not what the conversation is about. But "existence" does matter to something like CSI universe (Q110918424). As it's obviously pointless to have an item for a "CSI universe" if said universe isn't a thing to begin with. I don't think the part about it being useful is really relevant if there's "CSI universe" to begin with either. From what I can tell nothing in Wikidata:Notability indicates that we can create items for whatever made up thing we want to as long as it serves a "structural need."
With "fictional universes" specifically there's already items for franchises and the like anyway. So I really don't see the point there. Q110918424 is literally just a duplicate of Q264198, which is actually sourced. But it seems like your totally cool with it simply because the items serves a structural need for items related to fictional universes on here more generally. Apparently even regardless of the lack of sourcing and again, the fact that it just duplicates an existing item. Weird opinion if I'm being honest, but alright. So it doesn't matter if an item is sourced to anything, actually exists as a concept, and/or duplicates exiting items. It's totally cool "because structural need." Got it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 we and Wikpedia as well have items/articles about various gods irrelevant of the gods really existing in the real world. Existance in the real world is not necessary for notability in either Wikidata or Wikipedia.
A fictional universe is a fictional entity while a "media franchise" isn't a fictional entity. from narrative universe (P1080) does not take "media franchise" as a valid value. If you think that having a data model centered around narrative universes isn't a good idea, the conclusion would be to propose the deletion of from narrative universe (P1080) / takes place in fictional universe (P1434) / fictional universe described in (P1445) and see to have the relevant properties that handle "media franchise" (I'm unsure whether we currently have all the functions or you would need one).
Maybe, those properties could also be changed to take "media franchise". That's an issue of the data model and focusing on individual items, is not the right place to focus if you want the data model changed. Consistency of a data-model is valuable for Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Sure, but you know as well as I do that gods are a false equivalency because there's actually sources out there discussing them as such. Which isn't the case with most of these fictional universes. Nowhere have I said there shouldn't be items for fictional subjects though. I could really care less if there's a item for Zeus. That's not what the conversation is about. Your just deflecting.
I totally agree with you when it comes to the difference between a fictional universe and a franchise. You'd have to agree with me though that the terms are commonly used interchangeably and that most of the time at least colloquially when someone calls a body of work a "universe" what they really mean is a franchise. I can do a Google Search right now for the term "fictional universe of X work" and will probably find some results. That doesn't inherently mean that everything is a "fictional universe" or that it then deserves a "fictional universe" item on Wikidata. The question is how to determine which works should or shouldn't have a separate "fictional universe" entry.
Personally, I think requiring sources is a good standard. The intention behind not requiring sources is laudable but doesn't really resolve the problem. I don't think getting rid of the property for fictional universes really fixes it either. Since again, they do exist in some circumstances. The main thing is just not creating an instance where everything has a "fictional universe" item simply because of inclusivity or whatever. I reject the idea that the only two options here are either absolutely no standards what-so-ever or deleting the property outright. There should a good middle ground that everyone can be satisfied with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke about gods, because it illustrates that existance in the real world is not central.
People frequently use terms interchangably and that frequently produces data quality issues because people don't distinguish different concepts.
There's value in having a coherent way to model the information whether two fictional characters that are notable share a fictional universe. Whether a source explicitely uses the phrase "fictional universe" to express that or uses other word is not central. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I don't think "people do things" is a valid justification for duplicating information with multiple properties and\or creating items for non-exiting concepts. And I disagree that existence doesn't matter. If someone created an item for their imaginary friend it would be deleted on site regardless of if there's items for Greek gods or not. The endless obfuscation on your end is rather trite though. So we'll have to agree to disagree and end it there. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with an admin that people shouldn't have entries for their pet rocks. Have fun with that though. I'm sure allowing for made up nonsense will totally bring in and retain new editors. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have notability criteria. Existence is not in those, but that doesn't mean that we don't have criteria. Item for imaginary friends won't allow us to make statements on other items and are thus not notable under the structural need criteria.
If you care about it, actually understanding our criteria would be useful as it would help you not to argue against strawman. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Why wouldn't something like fictional character (Q95074) or similar work for a structural need? fictional character (Q95074) seems to only apply to "narrative works" but I don't really see why that would make a difference. All I have to do is say my personal writings or whatever about my adventures with my imaginary friend would qualify. Or really, just use the property, leave it unreferenced, and then call it good there. I mean it's not like anyone is going to delete it anyway going by what you've been saying. I don't see how that's a strawman either when it's literally your standard and exactly how your saying we should treat items for fictional universes. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, on the item for fictional character (Q95074) there's no reason to make a statement that links to your imaginary friend. When it comes to structural need, it's about there being a item that we already consider notable that makes a statement that links to the new item. Frank Tripp (Q2455260) and Adam Ross (Q2824002) are both notable (they even have their own Wikipedia pages) and they link with from narrative universe (P1080) to CSI universe (Q110918424) and that makes CSI universe (Q110918424) notable.
No existing notable item is going to link to your imaginary friend and thus there's no structural need that makes it notable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing a batch

[edit]

I made a mistake for the batch https://editgroups.toolforge.org/b/QSv2/238496/ and when I try to undo it, I get a "Server Error (500)". Is there a way to get the batch undoing working? Is it generally broken? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't get my OAUTH working for EditGroups. --Lymantria (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: It looks like your batch is only missing qualifiers. You can just run QuickStatements again and it will add the qualifiers to the values (no need to remove the values first). Dexxor (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, the problem is that some of the qualifiers were wrong. I pulled down to copy value and it counted the property numbers for the qualifiers up (some errors that result in no data but also a bunch of wrong data). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You could make a new batch that removes values with bad qualifiers and re-adds them with the right qualifiers (aka using QuickStatements as a poor man's undo batch button). Dexxor (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I have recently done some maintenance work on this tool, but more work would be needed to make it work reliably. I also get a HTTP 500 error when trying to log in, so I can see it is indeed broken. I notice that my motivation to maintain this tool is dwindling. I have added a banner to the tool, pointing to a new Phabricator task to request help. As much as I see that this tool continues to fulfill an important need in the community, I continue to think that its architecture isn't fit for purpose on the long term (see this list of problems I mentioned 5 years ago). I am happy to see that with the advent of Wikibase.Cloud (where EditGroups isn't available), Wikimedia Deutschland has started to hear voices from users who struggle with undoing imports on Wikibase.Cloud, and so they are considering deploying EditGroups there. This is the paradox I am confronted with: the importance of infrastructure in this area can only be visible if EditGroups isn't available. So, in a sense, if I want something reliable to appear in this space, I shouldn't maintain EditGroups. On the other hand it really pains me to see this tool broken and people struggling to do their work because of that. It also pains me to ask for more work from others. − Pintoch (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pintoch are you planning to get it sooner or later operational again, or need I go through the manual work of undoing the badge? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of items sourced purely to a Wiki Loves Monuments ID

[edit]

A couple of weeks ago I had nominated some items for gravestone for deletion that were linked nothing to else but a Wiki Loves Monuments ID. Since there's nothing in Wikidata:Notability or the original proposal for the property saying that it is an indicator of notability. Which would make sense considering Wiki Loves Monuments IDs are user generated and based purely on the existence of said monument.

@Multichill: Subsequently closed all the deletion requests as keep because Wiki Loves Monuments is supposedly a well established criterion for notability and then they threatened to block me if I renominated the items for deletion. Which, aside from just coming off like bad faithed bullying, really doesn't make much sense. So does anyone besides @Multichill: know if Wiki Loves Monuments IDs are an indicator of notability or know of any past discussions about it? Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A WLM id usually means an item has been named in an official heritage register, that may not be available online. So if a WLM id exists, it's probably best to start from the assumption that the item probably is notable, unless there are any very clear reasons to think otherwise. Also, consider that removing items from the WLM list here is disruptive to a high-profile project, and may affect Wikipedia pages that automatically draw on the list here.
Looking at consequences, it would seem to me that the downside of including an item here that may not be notable is rather less that the downside of not including an item here that is notable. There is also the question of removing other people's work; and affecting images on Commons that may refer to the item here.
For all these reasons, I would suggest to be disposed to tread very softly in respect of items that have a WLM id. If there is a group of items that you think should not be included, it probably makes sense in the first place to take it up with the national group that put together the WLM list for that country. I would strongly advice that any deletion request here should not be made unless it has been cleared and approved by that group first. Best regards, Jheald (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WLM id usually means an item has been named in an official heritage register @Jheald: From what I understand that's not actually the case. Supposedly one of the reasons there's Wiki Loves Monuments IDs in the first place is because there's a lot of monuments that aren't in official government databases. So the IDs serve to fill in the gaps. Which makes since because there's be no point in the IDs to begin with otherwise. I know that's the case at least with monuments in Ukraine and Russia though. There's a lot of monuments in both countries that aren't in official databases that Wiki Loves Monuments has IDs for.
May affect Wikipedia pages that automatically draw on the list here. All of the items that I nominated for deletion weren't connected to other projects. Let alone where they notable enough to have Wikipedia articles or anything like that. Same goes for there being images for them on Commons. None of them did. So I don't really see how them being deleted would be disruptive or have an effect on anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik, the least currently of Wiki Loves Monuments ID is that it could be used in external tools. For example Wikimedia Commons app (Q12528989) and https://app.wikilovesmonuments.it uses it. More globally the Monuments database would transition to use Wikidata as backend. The reason for using single property instead of multiple ones is that in software development point of view it is overly complex to manage rules for multiple different properties. There are is also SPARQL performance reasons why one will want to keep the number of properties smaller. --Zache (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the interpretation of what we see as falling under our notability policy gets decided over at deletion requests and some discussions about undeletion of items that happen elsewhere. Simply, renominating items after you see that a category of items get decide to be kept at Request of Deletion causes unnecessary work and is disruptive.
It's worth noting that our policies speak of "can be described using serious and publicly available references" and not "are described using serious and publicly available references", so the absence of references on an item is not in itself a reason why the item is not notable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I totally agree that something's notability should be decided over at deletion requests. The problem is that Multichill unilaterally closed the deletion requests as keep when I had just opened them and there was no discussion. Otherwise I would have been more then happy to not start this conversation and let the normal process play out. You can't have it both ways where it's disruptive to renominate an item for deletion but then it's totally fine for admins to unliterally close DRs after a couple days based on their own personal opinions and regardless if there's been any discussion about it though.
I could ultimately care less if items for monuments that are actually notable exit on here. The problem is that Multichill made a blanket pronouncement that every monument with a Wiki Loves Monuments ID is de-facto notable and then unliterally steamrolled any sort of discussion about it. At least IMO it's totally valid to renominate said items for deletion in an instance like that. Any disruption or extra work it might cause is totally on Multichill for unliterally closing the DRs out of process. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I'm one of the folks who create items for component parts of monuments that lack references or monuments that lack references, usually in Brazil. I believe a low percentage of listed monuments in Brazil even have a Wikidata item -- which I know from experience. And certainly not any references. I've visited the regional federal offices for listed monuments (IPHAN) to locate the monuments of a region, and there's a lack of documentation at all levels of government--federal, state, and municipal. WMB is actively collecting sources at all levels of government and academia, but it's very time consuming, or the references exist in documents that are rare or lost.
I think the context of the regions we're working with on Wiki Loves Monuments is important. Can I request that folks take a pause on deleting monuments, or components of monuments? Creating an item with no references is an interesting process, because putting the cart (the item) before the horse (references) puts you on the lookout for the references themselves! I often find highly detailed information signs, but I consider them within copyright so I don't upload them.
Most importantly, thank you all for your work on monuments in Wikidata. You're contributing to an architectural inventory that does not exist elsewhere for individual countries or even regions, and in practice does it contribute to the survival and/or preservation of these works? It sure does! Prburley (talk)
Putting the cart (the item) before the horse (references) puts you on the lookout for the references themselves! It really doesn't though. The items just stay unreferenced for years and then they can't be deleted because people like Multichill and ChristianKl complain about how doing DRs for unsourced items cause extra work or whatever. Regardless, it's ridiculous to create a bunch of unreferenced items purely because you think sources might exist for them and/or you plan on adding them later at some point in the future. Wikidata:Notability might as well not even exist at that point. But hey, screw the notability guidelines because nominating the items for deletion causes extra work though. Sounds like a great way to run a website. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:Notability does not say that items staying unreferenced for years is a problem. It just doesn't.
Wikidata is not run so with the intention of work of well intentioned contributors get deleted but so that a lot of different people can contribute to Wikidata.
The spirit of deletionism isn't healthy for Wikipedia either and we don't need it on Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I mean, realistically there are serious usability problems on both projects that are caused by being to inclusionist. With Wikidata specifically the main reason I got into this was because there was an item for the fictional city of New York that was being automatically added to items instead of the actual city. Otherwise I could really care less, but I don't think your handwaving about how a lot of different people can contribute to the project should necessarily come at the cost of being able to do basic things like add a location to an item. Maybe that's just me though.
I originally asked the question so I wouldn't needlessly be nominating similar items for deletion in the future if monuments with Wiki Loves Monuments IDs were in fact notable. I know admins are their own special kind of fragile, but I do find you calling me a deletionist just because I asked a question about the guidelines rather patronizing. I'm sorry if this whole thing upset you that much, but there's no reason to insult me over it. I wasn't planning on nominating any more unsourced items for deletion anyway. It was just something I thought was worth clarifying. That's all. Have fun degrading usability of the site though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the goal is to move national Wiki Loves Monuments databases to Wikidata. To achieve this, detailed Wikidata items are necessary, either because they are notable in their own right or because they are part of larger notable objects. For example, they could be buildings located on an island that is protected as a whole. This is why these items are needed and should not be deleted. --Zache (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with "detailed Wikidata items" for the monuments. The problem is that they inherently can't be detailed if they are unsourced. There's certainly monuments with IDs out there that are detailed though, but that's not what I'm talking about. The problem comes in where there's a years old, unsourced item for a monument that has no other information except the location, name (which is usually made up to begin with), and a Wiki Loves Monuments ID.
I've certainly added more information to a few them myself, but at the end of day the responsibility for doing that should be on the original creator of the item and it should be done when the item is created. Not 12 years later by a random passerby. Just like with any other thing on here. I highly doubt the same standard would apply for anything else. I've certainly seen unsourced items for people, movies, locations, Etc. Etc. deleted before. Monuments just seem to get special pass for some reason. I have my suspicions as to why, but their clearly treated differently. I'm sure this whole thing would have gone a lot different if this it was about something else besides monuments. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things in the location data category in which validity you can confirm just by walking to it. --Zache (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but no one does it. i didn't know personal experience was a valid source anyway though. Clearly the bar for notability and sourcing has been lowered essentially to non-existence since I signed up. That's on me thinking there were still some kind of standards on here. As long as someone had a dream about it once, whatever. As long as different people can contribute to the project right? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another identfier for monuments or heritage designation (P1435) should be enough in most cases; the source could be a reference URL or stated in (P248). With people there is an additional policy (Wikidata:Living people), and the deleted items often only have user-generated identifiers. People and films are also typical subjects for hoaxes. Peter James (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: In your opinion would it be OK for someone to create an item that was sourced purely to unsubstantiated information from a Wikipedia article? Also how long do you think unsourced information should stay on here or is "indefinitely" totally fine? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata items are the best way that Wikipedia articles have sitelinks under each other and thus we allow Wikidata items without any statements provided they have links to Wikipedia articles. Generally, the more statements providing true information the better, even if that information is not referenced. That's the general Wikidata operates. There are some exceptions for property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) where I would consider it reasonable to remove unsourced information. In particular I would support removing unsourced ethnic group (P172) statements (which we currently don't and we have a lot that are a decade old).
Generally, I think the best way to have more and better data, is to make it easy for people to add more and better data. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I could probably could have been clearer about it but I wasn't asking about sitelinks. What I mean is using a fact from a Wikipedia article as a reference for a statement. For instance using a Wikipedia article as a reference that a family member is related to someone or the date of an event. Not basing an item on the existence of there being a Wikipedia article having to do with the subject in the first place. Like say for John Nopel (Q130569454), assuming there was a Wikipedia article mentioning John Nopel was a historian would it be OK to use that as a reference for his occupation? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no issue with that given that John Nopel is dead (and thus not subject to Wikidata:Living people). If he would be alive the matter would be more complicated. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: OK. Thanks for the explanation and conversation even though we clearly disagree about it. One more thing if you'll humor me, I know you say items for monuments don't need to be sourced to anything, but with an item like Q122726374 the whole justification for it seems to be that the statue is a "monument of monumental art of Ukraine of local importance." Otherwise the kind of seems pointless. Yet heritage designation (P1435) clearly requires a reference, which the statement doesn't have. That goes for most of items based on Wiki Loves Monuments IDs. Also, Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) clearly requires a coordinate location. Which again, most items based on Wiki Loves Monuments IDs don't have. So do you advocate for ignoring the requirements? Or should something that explicitly requires a source probably have one? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property: previously named as

[edit]

Does a property for former name exist? Prototyperspective (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: For organisations etc, use official name (P1448) if appropriate, or otherwise name (P2561), with the qualifier end time (P582) = date. If you don't know the date, qualifier end time (P582) = unknown value will do. For human beings birth name (P1477) and family name (P734) may also be appropriate. If another name is the name that is current, make a statement for that too, and give it preferred rank. Hope that helps, Jheald (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I think it solves it. I would use it for organizations, websites, and software – let me know if it doesn't work for any of these. I think many items miss this data and only have it in their description or aliases (maybe largely because it's so unclear?). See e.g. here. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
official name (P1448) works for anything that actually has an official name. That means that there has to be some official entity that gives out the name, which is usually true for organizations, websites, and software. We have nickname (P1449) and native label (P1705) and a few other name properties for other kind of names. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: It's not a property but there's former name (Q29569274). Although it only seems to have a hundred or so uses. So I doubt it's worth adopting more generally. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A hundred or so is not little on its own and also because that is probably only a tiny proportion of what the use would be if there was a a dedicated and easy to find well-known property for it. Seems like former name is used in the qualifier "reason for deprecated rank" (mostly?) and the former name is set on properties like given name. I don't know what the downsides of adopting this property are if there are any. I don't think it's important but I do see an issue with the lack of it causing data quality to be lower as people put the same info into all sorts of different fields such as the aliases and so on. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason the item exists is because ja-wiki has a page for it. In contrast to new property generation that has a process that prevents people from creating properties that go against the way we model data, people can easily use items for purposes for which they don't exist.
While someone added "reason for deprecated rank" it's not a valid reason for deprecating a statement. We just set the current name as preferred rank.
We have the name (P2561) and subproperties for allowing user to had high quality data about names that have proper qualifiers and that can have references. Actually stating end time (P582) takes more effort, but it leads to higher quality data then without it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Briefly reiterating that not having a property for this leads to lower data quality. I thought a property for this already exists so I asked here instead of proposing it which I'm quite unsure of whether I will do. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a general principle of stating with end time (P582) when a claim that was true in the past is not true anymore. That principle finds application with properties related to names but also any other property where there are changes over time.
Requiring data that's entered to be high quality (be explicit about the end time) does lead to less data being entered, but I don't think it's as easy to summarize that as "lower data quality" because there's less data entered.
Having a general principle around how time works allows people to learn to use end time (P582) with any property instead of needing to learn a separate property for each case where time comes into play. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for these clarifications. In that case, I think somewhere or somebody should probably organize items with texts like "previously named" or "prior name" (or e.g. having prior names only in aliases) to have their data converted according to the best practice / standard you just described here. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of different names in aliases. Actually, chosing the right name property, right qualifiers and a good reference for a claim about names, is not something you can easily automate based on looking at the aliases.
In practice, there's also the case where one organization gets replaced by a different organization with a different name and we have one item for each. Someone might write in the description of an item that X is the former name of Y when in fact X was the predessor organization to Y.
If someone in interested in improving the quality of certain items, documenting all the names properly is a way of doing so. At the same time, most people are likely not interested in improving the names of random items. There are many cases in Wikidata where improvements are made. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere was I talking about automating it. I don't understand how this relates to my comment. I was saying somebody should probably look at e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=previously+named&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns120=1 and move the previous name into proper fields such as via using the end time property as you described. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: I'm not sure what the deal with "former name" is. The reason I said it's probably not worth using is because low usage numbers for something like that can sometimes show it's not an "accepted" property for other items and/or that it's being phased out. So I'm just trying to save you the hassle of getting reverted if turns out to be a bad property or whatever. It is an option though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrototyperspectiveFor the claim "Somebody else (then me) should to X" you need to argue more than just that doing X is benefitial.
@Adamant1 One of the problem of the using the item for former name as P31, is that it confuses the entity with the name of the entity. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then don't. I don't see what more to argue but I was saying "Okay case closed, somebody should probably check this and move the prior names according to what you described (Property:P582) at some point". Prototyperspective (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl, that's fair. Thanks for the extra context. @Prototyperspective: At least from what I've seen there doesn't seem to be a formal or organized way to depreciate and cleanup an item on here. At least outside of deletion requests I guess, but there's certainly nothing like what Commons has for dealing with bad categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the reason for the name change is a change of operator, as it is for ships, I use operator (P137) with the date qualifier and official_name qualified with that operator. Vicarage (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of different ways this is currently handled (or often not specified) which means there isn't really one expectable queryable semantically-parsable field. Two notes:
  • if there was a property for this then things could still be set on e.g. last name or official_name with qualifiers in addition and one could have an at-scale tool/script show which items that should have something set in that property miss that property
  • Many don't know the end time or start time or in many cases it's not known, just that there was a prior name and which previous name
Prototyperspective (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding additional properties that could also be used does not lead to a expectable queryable field as different people are going to use different solutions.
unknown value Help is valid for those cases where you don't know the exact end time.
To the extend that data models frequently are not specified in Wikidata, the solution is to acutally specify them in a document, likely on some Wikiproject. You don't solve problems caused by a lack of documentation by adding new properties.
If you have a problem within Wikidata, thinking "one could have an at-scale tool/script show which items that should", you have to think about the software capabilities that we actually have to show things at scale. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how your approach would handle multiple name changes. Some ships have 8 name changes over 5 names, and think about Elizabeth Taylor's real name with all those marriages! Vicarage (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entering them as different values in the previous name prop. Ideally each with end time set if public and known. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not on your end of course but this whole thing really just comes off like over engineering for it's own sake. "Why have a single concise way do a particular thing when there's already 50 other less clear ways to do it?" I get wanting to give people options but it's way to obtuse and spreads so thing thin that the former name isn't even worth adding at that point. Like say I have my way of doing it, you have yours, someone else has theirs Etc. Etc. If I'm looking for businesses by the former name I have to know you and the other people's way of doing it even exists in the first place, which isn't a given, and then create a query with 15 properties for no other reason then giving people options. Come on, that's not a workable way to run a database or have a website. Seriously, just have one way to do it and stick to that. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if anybody in this discussion has looked at the link I shared twice that shows search results with countless items that have the previous name only set in inappropriate ways such as in the description field and so on. Having a property is exactly about Like say I have my way of doing it, you have yours, someone else has theirs Etc. Etc. If I'm looking for businesses by the former name I have to know you and the other people's way of doing it even exists in the first place, which isn't a given – this is the thing it addresses. just have one way to do it and stick to that that's what I'm saying. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WD convention is that label and description are really for the use of humans searching the site, the real meat of the site used by software should be contained in properties. And there is a good argument that named things should repeat their labels in name (P2561) and official name (P1448) (TBH, I'd have never allowed the distinction, and merged them, just leaving nickname (P1449) separate, but its too late now). For the majority of things that have never changed name just a label may be fine, for those that have, the convention of recording with one of the existing properties the current value without time qualifiers, and old values with them, we have a robust way of handling the problem. Adding a new property just for old names would give another option for people to go their own way. I'd agree that all 300 of your examples should be visited to ensure that old names were copied out of descriptions to formal properties, but there is no harm in leaving the descriptions as is, if one human thinks it explains the situation better to another.
Also aliases are for people, alternate names recorded there should be put in properties that indicate why they are present. An example is the convention for no initialisms in the label, only the alias, to be coded up so a bot knows whether it will get NATO or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Vicarage (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one human thinks it explains the situation better to another. No offense, but stuff like that just encourages bad habits and creating holes in the data. If it's better to have the information as a property then there's no reason to retain it in the description. If anything things like that just train people to put information in descriptions instead of doing it the "normal" way. I see it happen all the time myself. It's a pointless waste of everyone's time having to enter information into a property just because the original editor didn't know or care that they were suppose to do it that way to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to add to an item of a person that they were born in London and type London into the search bar it's very useful to see the description that allows me to distinguish between the city in the UK, the given name and the city in Canada without having to open the page of the item and looking at properties. Descriptions also get shown in some Wikipedia searches.
There would be some benefit of having descriptions automatically be created based on information that's in properties. Maybe, we will have that in the future via WikiFunctions. Today, we don't have it and we likely won't have it in a year either.
Plenty, of Wikidata items get created because someone created a Wikipedia article. Often the people creating it don't know much about how information can be expressed in Wikidata. If a person likes that writes a short description and sets P31, that's already a huge improvement over not adding any information. Wikidata has diverse users who care about different aspects. Different users have different motivations about filling holes in data. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example I try to ensure the description for warships to be "1914 A-class destroyer", information that is contained in properties of the item, but tells anyone searching that they've found the right date and type of ship, very useful when ship names are reused over centuries. I'm sure similar conventions exist for other fields, like country, occupation and lifespan of people. I try to ensure that vessel class and launch date are coded in properties and copied to description, and the official name is copied to aliases, though trying to police aliases is not worth it, as people put all sorts of stuff in them. With the advent of mul language code, its the mul versions of label and aliases that should be recorded, but the description needs to be in English etc (though I let others do other languages if they care). My bots always use the properties, falling back to the labels. A key concession for people is that the label can vary with language, so a second-hand US cruiser that is the pride and joy of another country's navy might have different label/alias split. Regarding the OP, this is why all names are coded in properties but the most useful, not the latest, one goes in the label for people to read.
And I try to not overwrite hand-crafted descriptions that tell searching people more than my formula would. I hope this approach is both comprehensive and pragmatic. Vicarage (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (probably) doesn't address all you said but briefly the point with the example of descriptions was not about moving it out of the description but that this field is the only way this data is informally stored for the item. (If it's helpful there or in general it would be kept there. Let's say you wanted to show items with former names on disambiguation pages (for the former names), there's no way one could query for that.) Prototyperspective (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If properly recorded, then a query against names with an end date qualifier (or name/operator/end_date) would get what you wanted. There is no difference between name+end_date and the former_name you propose. The issue is poor recording of history, not the structural need for a new property. Vicarage (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True but as said this is about the items that do not have that set and the fact that many/probably most don't know about this way to specify that. Not even I knew about it despite that I thought about the previous name issue and used WD for a while. Also there's multiple name properties so one would need a query that combines all and again importantly many only know the prior name but not the end/start date. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you except that for Adding a new property just for old names would give another option for people to go their own way I think the opposite would be the case: it would standardize and merge the different ways this data is currently entered and thereby trim the many ways people go their own ways entering this data. I don't think this issue is particularly important but I meant to raise this issue and make sure what is meant is understood. your examples should be visited I'm not very familiar with the WD search operators but I think if there was a property one could copy or move the data from good ways this data is currently entered (eg in name but with end time qualifier) to this property and then create a query that shows all items with e.g. text "previous name" or "prior name" anywhere in the item or multiple name values but no previous name set. I guess it would be nearly as good if one showed items with multiple names set without any of the items having a preferred rank or similar. if one human thinks it explains the situation better to another disagree on that because it's not usable data in terms of being able to be queried or used etc. Anyway, again I don't think it's important but it may be better to address this sooner rather than later as more dispersed unstructured data in the future would mean this would be harder to get right later on. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation warning that mobile users can't add Statements

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T377743

Would it be possible/appropriate for someone to add that mobile users can't add statements to Help:Statements#Adding_statements and maybe the nutshell. Quite frustrating and confusing. Commander Keane (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, were you using mobile itself when looking at the Help page? If so, perhaps we can add a fairly visible notice to that page for mobile only? As well as a smaller note somewhere else. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was on mobile at the time, attempting to create my first item on mobile. Commander Keane (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be more useful to have a note on the item page when you are editing it? or on the help page? or both? ·addshore· talk to me! 23:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be applied to mobile only then on the item page would be good. The help page should mention it regardless, probably a hat note in the section I initially linked to. Commander Keane (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created a phabricator ticket for this request https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T377743 ·addshore· talk to me! 15:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Commander Keane (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceb

[edit]

Bautzen (Q31906993) looks essentially the same as Bautzen (Q14835) except 1 machine generated article. what to do? RoyZuo (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, one item is for the municipality, and another one for the town which happens to be the seat. I did not check whether the municipality only consists of the town, but this is likely the case here. In the past, I proposed to make an exception to the notability criteria, so that the presence of the Cebuano sitelink does not create notability. Until this has been accepted, both items are notable, and we have to let it go. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to de:Bautzen, there are 29 districts (formerly 25) in Bautzen (Q14835); only six of those districts (Bautzen-Innenstadt (Q161006), Bautzen-Nordostring (Q1554392), Bautzen-Gesundbrunnen (Q160616), Südvorstadt (Q2381665), Westvorstadt (Q2565705) and Ostvorstadt (Q160655)) are in Bautzen (Q31906993). Peter James (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter James i dont get it. is the capital ceb:Bautzen (kapital sa distrito) of the district (Landkreis Bautzen) not the municipality ceb:Bautzen (munisipyo)? RoyZuo (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is feature class, so ceb:Bautzen (kapital sa distrito) is a populated place and ceb:Bautzen (munisipyo) is an administrative division. I don't know if municipalities or populated places are usually regarded as capitals of districts in Germany, but if Bautzen (Q14835) is the capital then "Bautzen (kapital sa distrito)" should probably be changed to "Bautzen (lungsod)". Sometimes it is better to merge, but in this case there are districts of Bautzen (Q14835) that are not in Bautzen (Q31906993). Peter James (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if municipality seat (Q15303838) has any real-world relevance in german law, etc.
anyway, i dont really care how poorly managed wikidata is, but the problem is it's confusing for users outside wikidata. for example, a commons user making statements of depicts or location etc. will see these identically named items. most people wont bother try going to the bottom to find out which should actually be selected.
this is one of the first times i try to sort out identically named and described items. i'll just always pick the one on top in future. poor management on wikidata side causing errors in commons sdc is not my or any commons user's fault. RoyZuo (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Wikidata side, it's a question of values and not of poor management. You could argue that ceb-Wiki is poorly managed to allow these bot articles. Maybe, the new Council should do something about the bot articles on ceb-Wiki because they don't manage to remove them on their own.
In Wikidata we can ask, should every Wikipedia article have the right to have a Wikidata item or not? I created a proposal to remove notability from ceb-Wiki (which would allow merging in cases like this), feel free to comment over there. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not useful, there are only separate items for different feature classes because they were created by a bot, but if there is consensus for separate articles we should not disallow that. Sometimes there are duplicates, and others have a different feature class but cover the same area, but in this case they are not the same. Commons only has a category for the municipality but there also categories for its districts. There are many things in Wikidata that have the same label as a related item but a different class - musical compositions, recordings and singles, books and editions, and towns, administrative divisions and railway stations. Peter James (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does wikidata already have a bot compiling reports of items that have identical (ignore case or diacritics) en label (except blanks) and description (blanks included)?
my ui lang is en. it's so often that when i type something in the depicts field in uploadwizard, several items show up with the same name and description (or no description), then it always puzzles me as to which should be picked.
for wikidata to be useful for commons sdc, all these descriptions need to be disambiguated clearly. RoyZuo (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that having a matching label and description pair (blanks excluded) on two items has been made technically impossible by the system. A warning pops up if a user tries to do that. I think currently the only label-based duplicate finder is Wikidata:Database reports/Same humans but maybe we could think about what others could be created. The issue is that it has to be done so that the number of false positives is low, otherwise nobody would care to go through it. Samoasambia ✎ 18:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be https://wikidata-game.toolforge.org/distributed/#game=33 which doesn't seem to work anymore. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Duplicates is currently a place you might look at.
Writing good description is indeed helpful. Another way to make it easier to find the correct item would be to avoid showing constraint violating options. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T377071 is a proposal to do that. If that would be implemented you for example would not see railway stations as an option when using located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). If the type constraints of the property allow only only books or only editions, the Commons user would only be shown the items that actually fit and not be confused about what item to pick. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VIAF dumps?

[edit]

Hello! Does anybody know anything about the VIAF dumps available at https://viaf.org/viaf/data/ The last one is from August. I am using those dumps since about 6 years and there was a new dump every month, but now there are two month missing? Last weekend I wrote a mail and asked, usually there is an answer on the next day, but I got no answer? --Wurgl (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProVe, a new tool to help with the quality of references

[edit]

Thanks to all of you you have so far tried ProVe, the new tool for checking the quality of references in Wikidata. It's greatly appreciated :-) (link to the archived discussion here).

@samoasambia thanks for your suggestions! We are updating the script import instructions in the documentation to avoid copy-pasting code, great idea. We're also adding ProVe to the tools catalog. Thanks for your help!

@Huntster thanks for letting us know, this was a bug. It's now been fixed, if you could try again and let us know if the new version works that would be great! Thanks

Just as a reminder for everyone else, ProVe provides information about the quality of the references of Wikidata items, based on techniques like large language models, triple verbalisation, and semantic similairty. We have also developed the **ProVe Gadget**, which visually presents ProVe's results as a widget at the top of a Wikidata item page. Any Wikidata user can easily turn this gadget on, see here for install instructions. You can use it to request the processing of references, showing reference scores, navigating problematic references, and quickly fix them with better ones.

If you're curious about this we'd greatly appreciate your feedback! :-) Albert.meronyo (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to use it, should be a useful thing, thanks. For some reason, the gadget does not analyse web.archive.org correctly and is unable to 'read' the text from the web archive. So, it says about it 'Sentence in external URL to be checked, possibly not authoritative'. --Wolverène (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think we may have to do additional checks to read text from the web archive, indeed. What item are you trying to analyse? Thanks for using ProVe! Albert.meronyo (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, e.g. Q23648408. (It is also listing IGN there as not authoritative although this is quite a well-known video games-related media with the serious team...) --Wolverène (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We're looking into this Albert.meronyo (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curating Musicals Data

[edit]

Hi, I'm looking at editing a bunch of musical (Q2743) data and their relations to cast album (Q108064011).

My questions are:

  • Is the appropriate action here to create a new page for each of A Little Night Music (Q2530921)'s cast albums? I think it matches the latter notability requirements, but I don't know to what extent Wikidata should just be mirroring every album from MusicBrainz.
  • Can you please point me toward any more specific groups/pages where it might be more appropriate to have this discussion?

David!! (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? "An entity with Steam application ID should also have a statement IsThereAnyDeal ID."

[edit]

This does not make sense to me. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steam application ID (P1733) and IsThereAnyDeal ID (P12570) RVA2869 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the idea behind constraints like that is that any item in the steam database is also in the IsThereAnyDeal database. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this be a constraint though?
The identifier Steam application ID (P1733) stands on its own. Its affiliated with Valve. IsThereAnyDeal: Not.
I find it more logical that if someone adds the IsThereAnyDeal property to an item without Steam Application ID then it makes sense to suggest they also add the Steam Application ID, not the opposite. Sounds to me like someone saying Debian is based on Ubuntu, its the other way around.
Regardless of the idea or the motivation for adding it, I think its important to consider that its different what is logical, reasonable and makes sense and different what some editors might prefer, if we assume some editors love to visit isthereanydeal.com. Not all editors start out with the thought "I'd really love to visit random site X after adding my Steam ID and I think that random site X is absolutely required after adding the Steam ID".
Google for Who owns isthereanydeal.com to understand my point of view in that Valve does not own that site nor are they affiliated.
Also I might look dumb to the outside world(even though that should be my problem) contributing to Wikidata with a Steam ID that is affiliated with Valve and then that property advising/"requiring" editors to also add the id for random site X that is 'loosely based on gaming', dealing with price of games.
Personally I care that it may look like Wikidata says Valve and random x company work together when they aren't. We shouldn't be saying that to new editors. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an uncessary burden for volunteers and the constraint system. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The constraint had been removed and later been re-added which I assume was a random mistake.
This was the edit that removed the constraint:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P1733&diff=prev&oldid=2193107074
The next edit re-added what had been removed...so I'll just undo that one and then point a reference to this discussion. Thank you for commenting! SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The constraint was in the correct direction because the reasoning is that all Steam games have an entry on IsThereAnyDeal, however not all games on isThereAnyDeal have a Steam entry.
That said, I agree this sort of suggestion constraint quickly feels like busywork and can be removed − there’s even a -reason for deprecated rank (P2241)constraint provides suggestions for manual input (Q99460987) for that − see the below query for its usage on video game identifiers.
SELECT ?property ?propertyLabel ?constraint ?constraintLabel ?reason ?reasonLabel WHERE {
  VALUES ?type {
    wikibase:ExternalId
    wikibase:Url
  }
  ?property wikibase:propertyType ?type;
    wdt:P6104 wd:Q8485882;
    p:P2302 ?st.
  ?st ps:P2302 ?constraint;
    pq:P2241 ?reason;
    wikibase:rank ?rank.
  FILTER(?rank = wikibase:DeprecatedRank)
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],mul,en". }
}
Try it!
Thank you for raising this! Jean-Fred (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A key problem is that we lack on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Property_constraints_portal/Item agreed upon heuristics about when this constraint should be added and when it shouldn't. I personally don't find the constraint useful and in cases where this relationship holds, adding IsThereAnyDeal ID (P12570) should be the job of a bot and not work that human editors should be encouraged to do. "suggestions for manual input" aren't really necessary.
But, it's not a situation that's particular to Steam application ID (P1733) and IsThereAnyDeal ID (P12570). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entity incorrectly added as disambiguation page

[edit]

The entity Honesto (Q107365171) was defined as instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). I assume that was an error, because I don't see any point in the history of the article in enwiki in which it was a disambiguation page. What should be done in cases like this? Should I move the link of the enwiki article to a new entity page or should I change the value of instance of (P31) and remove all the descriptions assuming all of them mean "disambiguation page"? -- Agabi10 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was already an item Honesto (Q15572194) but the article was moved and a disambiguation page was created. After disambiguation page was deleted and the article moved back, the links should be updated automatically but on this occasion they were not - possibly because the move was via draft namespace and involved swapping two pages and moving without redirects. Usually I would have moved anything relevant to Q15572194 and requested deletion of Q107365171, but as statements had been added to Q107365171 I decided to merge to Q15572194. Peter James (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No match was found" when adding information

[edit]

What should I do if, when adding information in a statement, I receive the message "no match was found". Should I create a new item for this information or are there any other ways to add information? Tish irs (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to search for the item. Maybe, the item exists with a different name than what you are searching for. If there's no existing item, you can usually create a new item. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] CampaignEvents Extension Now Live on Wikidata

[edit]

The CampaignEvents extension is now live on Wikidata! This means that if you are an event organizer, you can use several new tools to help manage your Wikidata events more easily. By getting the Event Organizer right, you can:

With this extension, you can also see all global events (past, present, and future) on the Special:AllEvents page, but only events using the event registration feature will appear there.

If you are an organizer and want to use these new tools, follow the instructions on the Wikidata:Event Organizers page to request the Event Organizer right. -Udehb-WMF (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #650

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2024-10-21. Missed the previous one? See issue #649

Discussions

  • Open request for adminship: Addshore (RfP scheduled to end after 23 October 2024 18:03 UTC)
  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • CarbonBot - (1) Add default mul labels to given and family names when the item has an existing default label with a mul language (2) Remove duplicated aliases matching the items mul label, when the item has a native label in with a mul language. As mul has not been fully adopted, a limited of aliases would be modified each day to ensure existing workflows are not disrupted. It is expected that these tasks will apply to roughly 800,000 given and family names.
    • So9qBot 10 - Add first line (P1922) with the first line of the paper to all scientific papers which has a full text link or where the abstract is available.

Events

  • Upcoming: We are getting ready for Wikidata:Twelfth Birthday on the 29th October. We already have 30 events scheduled on the list 😍. As a reminder, when your event is ready, don't forget to (1) create a wikipage with more information about the event, participants list, etc. (2) add your event to the global calendar and the map, following the instructions here: Wikidata:Twelfth Birthday/Run an event/Schedule
  • Past:

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • User:Ainali/PreViewStats.js - is a Userscript that gives a quick glance at the pageviews in the header (and links to the full views). If you install it on your global.js on meta, it works on all projects).
  • Wikidata:ProVe - (Automated PROvenance VErification of Knowledge Graphs against Textual Sources) - is a tool for helping editors improve the references of Wikidata Items.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • Deepesha Burse joins WMDE as Developer Advocate for Wikibase Suite
  • Wikibase Suite: Patch releases as the first round of patch releases for all Wikibase Suite products, including all WBS Images as well as WBS Deploy
  • The CampaignEvents extension is now live on Wikidata! This means that if you are an event organizer, you can use several new tools to help manage your events more easily. By getting the Event Organizer right, you can:
    • Use simple on-wiki registration for your events.
    • Integrate Outreach Dashboard with your event registration page. (see demo)
    • Communicate more easily with your registered participants. (see demo)
    • Make your events more visible to other editors through the Special:AllEvents page.
    • Find potential participants for your next events. (see demo), and much more!
    • With this extension, you can also see all global events (past, present, and future) on the Special:AllEvents page, but only events using the event registration feature will appear there. If you are an organizer and want to use these new tools, follow the instructions on the Wikidata:Event_Organizers page to request the Event Organizer right.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • Vector 2020: We’re working on improving Wikibase’s dark mode support somewhat (phab:T369385)
  • We polished the automatic undo/redo messages to make them more useful (phab:T194402)
  • Design system: We’re close to finishing migrating Special:NewLexeme to the Codex design system
  • EntitySchemas: We’re working on searching EntitySchema values by label and alias (phab:T375641)

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

IMDB

[edit]

Hello all,

The links for IMDb ID (P345) not working. Trivialist added this prefix to the link - https://wikidata-externalid-url.toolforge.org . I don't understand what that means and anyway the links does not working with that prefix. Geagea (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prefixes differ per type, so we use a volunteer tool to convert them (and have been for years). It seems like the tool is offline though, @ArthurPSmith, can you check? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the different prefixes in formatter URL (P1630) of IMDb ID (P345), can't we use those directly instead of using the tool? -- Agabi10 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geagea: Yeah, looks like it crashed yesterday - sorry to be slow noticing. It's been a year since the last restarr; it seems to be working now. Maybe I should schedule more frequent restarts... ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith, now working thanks. Geagea (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limit of 45 langauges

[edit]

There is limit of languages set at 45 but if I add 46th or 47th language to user babel then a new language appears, and some random languages are skipped - how is that determined? That means you have to check 45 languages you wanted at babel with actual list of languages available, and any two languages are skipped without notice - so you have to check manually which languages were skipped. The other question is how to extend this number above 45? Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need more than 45, especially now that we have mul? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent records removal

[edit]

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Morgan Hermand-Waiche to formally request the permanent removal of all records associated with him from your website. Mr. Hermand-Waiche believes that the presence of this information constitutes a violation of his rights, and he does not wish for any details pertaining to him to be displayed publicly. I would like to emphasize that I am connected from the company account to validate that this information is accurate. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and please note that the reference source, Who's Who, has already deleted his records. link: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20089624 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Je vous écris au nom de M. Morgan Hermand-Waiche pour demander formellement la suppression permanente de tous les dossiers le concernant de votre site web. M. Hermand-Waiche estime que la présence de ces informations constitue une violation de ses droits et il ne souhaite pas que des détails le concernant soient affichés publiquement. Je tiens à souligner que je suis connecté depuis le compte de l'entreprise pour valider que ces informations sont correctes. Nous vous remercions de l'attention portée à cette demande, et nous tenons à préciser que la source de référence, Who's Who, a déjà supprimé ses dossiers. Merci pour votre assistance rapide. Angeleml (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia consider him notable enough to have a page at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Hermand-Waiche , we generally do not delete items on Wikidata if there's a Wikipedia page associated to it and even if we would delete an item with an Wikipedia page, that item would get automatically recreated.
As far as I can see the French Wikipedia does not use Who's Who has the reference for their data. If the French Wikipedia does decide to delete the article please mention it here.
Note that both Wikidata and Wikipedia are part of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you want to make a formal legal request addressed at the Wikimedia Foundation, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Legal_Affairs describes how to correspond with the legal department. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And thanks for deleting the birth date from here as it was his most important concern. Angeleml (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Angeleml: Unfortunately, if the information is already public elsewhere in a reliable source, it will not be removed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata editathon in Albania, 2024

[edit]

Hey folks, on October 30th, the Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group will organize an editathon focused on improving and creating content related to Albania and Kosovo. As this event may involve contributions from new accounts, we kindly ask for your support in monitoring our activities that day. Your guidance in addressing any mistakes or areas for improvement would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Vyolltsa (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vyolltsa: according to
there currently are 4870 unconnected articles for sqwiki:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M2k~dewiki Thank you! Vyolltsa (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to add/remove badges to this item

[edit]

I would like to add a badge on my article Castlereagh–Canning duel, but failed, as I am not an Admin / trusted user and should contact an Admin. Thanks in advance Michael G. Lind (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have to be in the confirmed or autoconfirmed groups to change badges. I have added the good article badge to the enwiki sitelink Castlereagh–Canning duel (Q114341647) to reflect the good article template/status on enwiki. See Wikidata:Autoconfirmed users for information on the criteria for automatic granting of autoconfirmed. William Graham (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Celebration: Wikidata's 12th Birthday is Coming!

[edit]

Hi everyone,

Wikidata's 12th birthday is just around the corner, and we couldn't be more excited! 🎉 Since going live on 29 October 2012, Wikidata has grown into a thriving open-source knowledge base, thanks to all of you. Every year, the Wikidata community comes together to celebrate, with events happening around the world throughout October and November 2024.

Here’s why we celebrate:

  • To acknowledge the achievements of our community
  • To bring people together
  • To introduce Wikidata to the rest of the world and bring more people onboard

Let’s make this year’s birthday celebration just as incredible! Here’s how you can take part:

Join a Wikidata Birthday Event Near You

There are already 34 events planned around the world. Whether you're looking for an in-person meetup or an online event, there’s something for everyone! Find an event near you and celebrate with fellow Wikidata enthusiasts!

Organize Your Own Celebration

There’s still time to schedule and host a birthday event with your local community. It doesn’t have to be big -- it could be a casual meetup to share birthday sweets or an introduction to Wikidata at your local library. Learn how to schedule an event and discover our communication kit to help you promote it.

Prepare a Birthday Present for Wikidata

Each year, Wikidata users prepare gifts for the community -- these can be new tools, features, or anything that brings value or joy to our volunteers. Get inspired by past birthday presents and start working on something special for this year’s celebration!

Join the Online Birthday Calls on October 29th

To mark the big day, we’re hosting two online calls on October 29th where community members can showcase their birthday presents, connect, and celebrate together. Join the online calls and be part of the global celebration!

If you have any questions about Wikidata's 12th birthday, feel free to reach out or leave a note on Wikidata talk:Twelfth Birthday.

Let’s make this birthday unforgettable! 🎉

Cheers, -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist is full?

[edit]

TL;DR(Too Long, Didn't Read): Sorry, it's possible that the reason I got an error has nothing to do with my watchlist.

I've found that a way I can track recent changes of all(or most up til now) games that I have stumbled upon that are

compatible with
Normal rank Steam Deck edit
0 references
add reference


add value

and that have the qualifier

has characteristic
Normal rank verified edit
0 references
add reference


add value


I add these to my watchlist, then when I want to see recent changes of these items I just click on "Watchlist" in the top right between Beta and Contributions.

Am I doing this the right way? Is there a better way?

  • Is there a cap on the watchlist?
  • Does the watchlist cause a heavy strain on the service?
  • Would the watchlist cause a heavy strain on the service if a lot of users used it the way I did?

I was worried when I got an error when adding yet another item to my watchlist but it may turn out the error had nothing to do with my watchlist but maybe was some random issue with Wikidata 5-20 minutes ago. SuperUltraHardCoreGamer (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was an issue with the servers; I had errors trying to undo some edits. There is https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T378076 which mentions Commons, not Wikidata, but is probably related. Peter James (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2264452847"