Shortcut: WD:PC

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit

Harassment consultation

Please help translate to your language

The Community Advocacy team the Wikimedia Foundation has opened a consultation on the topic of harassment on Meta. The consultation period is intended to run for one month from today, November 16, and end on December 17. Please share your thoughts there on harassment-related issues facing our communities and potential solutions. (Note: this consultation is not intended to evaluate specific cases of harassment, but rather to discuss the problem of harassment itself.)

Regards, Community Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation

Offline Dictionary for different languages

Why there is no Offline dictionary are available of different languages? After searching there is no Offline positive result.

Mix'n'match daily report

For those of you interested in Mix'n'match and external catalog reconciliation, I now produce a daily report of things that might require manual attention. Some of that is Mix'n'match specific, but others may be of general interest (e.g. multiple items using the save external ID). --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnus Manske: Very useful. Thank you! Would it be possible to generate URLs for the identfiers in the "unrecognised external ID" part, to make them link to the database ? Jheald (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could disambiguations be included as well? By the way, I don't get any results after clicking on "Disambiguation links", it just says it's loading and should take ~30 sec. It used to work, maybe some change disabled it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You make my day :) GerardM (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query people of certain age

How do I query with WDQ people born between 1984 and 1986?--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kopiersperre: Query: BETWEEN[569,1984,1986-12-31] Jheald (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: Thanks.--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: - interested by that last bit. Does WDQ need to specify "up to 31 December" for a range rather than just using a year? (Wondering if I've been using it wrong...) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query: BETWEEN[569,1984,1986] will become Query: BETWEEN[569,1984-00-00,1986-00-00], i.e. it excludes all people born in 1986. --Pasleim (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle detector

Hey folks,

yesterday afternoon I wrote a little cycle finder prototype making use of the Wikidata query end point. You can find it at https://tools.wmflabs.org/hoo/Wikidata-cycle-finder.php. I have already been able to identify several flaws in our data with it and I'm sure there's more. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great tool. Maybe it's an idea that when there are no results to display the text "no results" or something. Mbch331 (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also : http://sergestratan.bitbucket.org/?draw=true&optid=s0&item=5 who has also a cycle detector. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just poked at it some more and it should be way faster now. Also it shows you when it couldn't find anything (like @Mbch331: requested). - Hoo man (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

first performance vs publication date

When should I use date of first performance (P1191) and when publication date (P577)? Because most of the times I see the first day a film or episode is aired with publication date (P577) but in Space Pilot 3000 (Q185831) for that date of first performance (P1191) is used instead. At least in the example of the first and the description of the second it seems that both can be used -- Agabi10 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using publication date (P577) for books and date of first performance (P1191) for plays and television programmes/series based on my reading of the description. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged "Antarctic"

I have reviewed the Antarctic continent, and should merge these pages User:CEM-air/MERGED-ANTARTIDA. But there are many to do it by hand. Anyone can do "fast"? I have separated into two formats or styles:

* Q21474599 (ceb:Wilds Nunatak) and Q8001495 (en:Wilds Nunatak)
* Q8001495 Q21474599

because I do not know the correct data format. --CEM-air (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CEM-air: Magnus's "Quick Statements" tool can be used to do a list of merges -- see https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/quick_statements.php for the format required. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merged using the merge tool (you can select it in the 'User preferences' and it gets added to every page). Joe Filceolaire (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do these with QuickStatements just now, if they've not been done already. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I was late with the sentences "MERGED Q21476831 Q2996102" --CEM-air (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Import factual data on Wikipedia to Wikidata

For example, the wikipedia page on hydrogen (chemical element) has so much factual information (statements) about hydrogen, unlike the wikidata entry with little information. Is it possible to load a wikipedia article in wikidata and then translate the information on the sidebar into wikidata statements? If such doesn't exist, wouldn't it be a good idea?

Much of this info has been imported from various reliable sources and there are projects to create the properties to enable this info to be imported (now that we have numbers with units) from those sources into wikidata, with references. Importing from the original sources is better than importing from wikipedia because we get the references as well as the latest data. Once that happens then we will be able to add chemical infoboxes to every language wikipedia. Ho[e this helps. 82.23.125.177 11:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, there is a lot of work in progress to copy information from Wikipedias to Wikidata. Eventually, some of that information may be replaced with well referenced information copied from any reliable source, but meanwhile Wikidata is a great tool for using in one wikipedia information from other wikipedias. For example, a few years ago we used to copy coordinates between wikipedias with bot, but now it's a lot easier just to use the coordinates that we upload from wikipedias to Wikidata.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of statements

Newbie here. Could someone explain to me what determines the order in which statements appear in Wikidata? Is it simply a function of when each statement was added to Wikidata?

For example, in IBM (Q37156), within the subsection "industry", the page lists "software industry", "hardware industry", "IT service management" and "information technology consulting". If (just for argument's sake) I wanted the page to list "hardware industry" first, so it comes before "software industry", how would I go about that? Jayen466 (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it is the order in which they've been added. There are plans on creating a specific order, but I don't know what the status is of those plans. Mbch331 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mbch331. Jayen466 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not very simple in this specific case, but Lua contains some functions that allows you to sort claims. Our Module:Wikidata here at Wikidata allows us to sort by such things as the "startdate" or "as of"-qualifiers for example. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sister city

Yesterday I added twinned administrative body (P190) as a "Conflicts with"-constraints to Swedish urban area code (P775). The database report today gave me 87 detected conflicts. The first row (Lund) had three such statements, which I could move and reference to another item.

I am not aware of any property so poorly referenced as this one. In some cases it is sourced with "imported from Wikipedia" and even those cases are too often wrong. I will spend the next weeks sorting these 87 conflicts out, fully aware of that I will in many cases fail to confirm such relations. Are there any other ways to detect errors with this property? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to generate a table listing the stages of a cycling race in Wikipedia ?

Hi everybody. As you know I work on cycling races, on the terrain and here. This year, like in 2013 and 2014, I illustrate the Quatre jours de Dunkerque 2015. Doing photos is interesting, but it is more interesting to be able to produce articles in most langages (because cyclists come from all Europe), and it is my goal for 2017. Since may, five infoboxes have been developed (only for cycling) and three modules for links to databases. See Grand Prix de Fourmies 2015 for a cycling race and 18e étape du Tour d'Espagne 2015 for a stage. I benefit on new properties last week (ProCyclingStats race ID (P2327), ProCyclingStats team ID (P2328), Cycling Archives race ID (P2330) and Cycling Archives team ID (P2331)) that offer me new possibilities.

So I come with another question today. When we work on a stage race, we generate a table. For an adaptation to Wikidata, I have theses properties :

For formatting (for example stages and profiles), I can create a dictionary. We have this system for the different types of teams. For the flag of the cyclist, we take this information in his item. It is already the case when we write results in an infobox. The formatting of the table is stocked in Modèle:En-tête de tableau Liste des étapes.

I have an example yesterday, the 2016 Four Days of Dunkirk (Q19859305). I list its stage thanks to has part(s) (P527), and each stage has an item that contained informations. Is somebody able to write for me a module that permits to make a table entirely generated by Wikidata ? I am not able to do this, but I can translate terms in French, I can create a dictionary (for exemple, series ordinal (P1545) ↔ 1 will give in French 1re étape), I can test it on articles, and I can write a documentation easily understanding by lambda contributors. My wish is to share a common module on around twenty Wikipedia, like ProCyclingStats, to boost smaller Wikipedias.

I have another project to display a race result on Wikipedia, but it will be for after. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you want to share a module on many Wikipedias, because each Wikipedia has a different Module:Wikidata. In fr:WP you have fr:Module:Infobox, written by user Zolo, which is the wikidata module that you would need in many Wikipedias, but it isn´t this way. Therefore you have to write a small wikidata module from scratch.
I have written Module:Cycling race, a short demo modul. On the discussion page Module talk:Cycling race you could see the Modul working on Q19859305 (2016 Four Days of Dunkirk). For this to work, I have added at the bottom of the item Q19859305 the diskussion page as the linked article.
In the code you see at the top some strange lines. You will find at the API-Sandbox hier how it looks for the whole item. You will see from this how the lines in the code are build. What is missing, is the code for the time string to look better. Maybe the templates in the Wikipedias could be used for this?
In this way it would be possible to build an infobox the way you want and share the module with different wikipedias. But I don´t know how to code that the infobox translates by itself. The easiest solution would be, that this is done by hand. --Molarus 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official theater release

How do I set the official release in theaters in a country for films? --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct? How do I distinguish between the official release in theaters and a festival? --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use publication date (P577) but use date of first performance (P1191) as well for festival with location (P276) as qualifier, and use date of official opening (P1619) for official release in theatres if the dates for these are different from the the publication or if they give extra info. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. But why not always use date of official opening (P1619)? --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it date of official opening (P1619) is probably better for TV shows, films and plays. Keep publication date (P577) for books and CDs and DVDs. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
date of official opening (P1619) is for buildings. In English it reads date of official opening, which looks strange to me for movies, TV shows and plays. If you would have said date of first performance (P1191) it would have been more logic. Mbch331 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about place of publication (P291)? That's what I read at the publication date (P577) discussion page. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

place of publication (P291) is about places not about dates. Mbch331 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Emmm... Joe Filceolaire at least as I understand date of official opening (P1619) is intended to be used for inaugurations, no for the first time something is aired... -- Agabi10 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbch331: The documentation of publication date (P577) tells to use place of publication (P291) as quantifier (and not location (P276) or country (P17)). --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion however isn't about which property to use for the place, but the property to use for the date. Mbch331 (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both. I wanted to know how I set the official release in theaters in a specific country for a film. So I also need to know where to put the country. --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Q#####

I wish to add several times a link an article (in euwiki without Q####) to another article (eo euwiki that know his Q####) My list is in User:CEM-air/EU-ASTEROIDES.

What tool can I use?

I've only read about merging two Q####. --CEM-air (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry me ... someone already did this weekend. --CEM-air (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CEM-air for the future this kind of tasks are easy to do with Quick Statements, at least if you can format the list in the format required by the tool. -- Agabi10 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic monolingual text

Hello, I filled the property title (P1476) to Dabiq (Q18324560) with "دابق‎". The texte that is displayed is "( (arabe دابق‎" (in French). Is this display issue already known? Pamputt (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's phab:T107861. - Nikki (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pamputt (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't this fixed? --- Jura 07:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox-Item (P369)

It says there "you can use this property for your experiments". Does this mean that I may assign and delete a claim with this property in any item for testing purposes? Is there also a Sandbox item to which I may assign anything for testing puposes? --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is Q4115189 and a handfull of others. You most likely find them in Category:Notability policy exemptions.
I would not give you any guarantee that using the sandbox-properties in real items does not affect how data is presented in the Clients. I know there are modules that tries to interpret any statement that is found in an item, including the sandbox-props. But using the sandbox-properties definitly do less harm than using many other properties. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikisource

What is the best way to link to documents in Wikisource? I can add the full link to a document, but wouldn't it be easier to link to a category of subjects, like we do for images? There are a few portals for authors, but not for subjects of source material. Am I doing it properly at Q6273866?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) at 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): No. The correct approach is to make a new item for the article, then use main subject (P921) to link to the person the biography is of.
There should not be a direct sitelink between a person and a biographical article because (i) an article is not a person; (ii) the same person may have several biographies; but there can only be one sitelink. Jheald (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see eg Tylor, Edward Burnett (Q16081140) / Edward Burnett Tylor (Q141037) for example, using the property described by source (P1343) to link back to the article. Jheald (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we have "Subject:Foo Smith" at Wikisource to link all the material about that person? They have "Author:Foo Smith" at Wikisource, if the person wrote material, and there you can list material they are the subject of. We have "Category:Foo Smith" at Wikimedia Commons even we just have two items, and sometime only one item in anticipation of more. Or should I just take an image of the original page in the book and add it to Wikimedia Commons to avoid problems with Wikisource? Do other people recognize this as a problem? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material can be linked to from the Wikidata item on a person by using the described by source (P1343) property, as described above.
It is also (additionally) appropriate to sitelink to the "Author:Foo Smith" page, for authors.
You'll have to take it up with Wikisource as to whether they have pages for subjects of articles too; but it's possible they may just be using Wikidata to index the main subject. There would also again be the problem that there can only be one sitelink, so one could not link both to "Author:Foo Smith" and to "Subject:Foo Smith"
But if Wikisource were to have "Subject:" pages, redirecting to "Author:" pages if the subject was an author, then there would be no objection in principle to a sitelink to such a "Subject:" page, since it would be in direct 1:1 relation with the Wikidata item. Jheald (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be achieved through the use of categories, such as "Category:Foo Smith", on Wikisource. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like "Category:Foo Smith" in Wikisource has different purpose depending on which project you look into. I have therefor this far avoided those pages. A category "About Foo Smith" maybe should not be linked with a category "Works by Foo Smith". Some projects may even combine those two subjects in the same category. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Showcase items

Hey everyone,

Harmonia Amanda and I are thinking about adjustments to the showcase item process. Currently, making a item a showcase item takes a very long time due to a unclear process.

The new process is described here, I already added some notes to the talk page about things I want some opinions about. Please leave your comments there, so we can highlight our best content better. :)

Geetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Property for 'copyright status'?

The 'copyright status of a work' is something that Wikimedians REALLY care about, and it is a crucial piece of metadata that we work with every day, but there is no way to model that in Wikidata yet (as far as I'm aware). I also assume that this kind of model would be a pre-requisite for things like structured-metadata on Commons. Would it be sensible to create a new property specifically to map the 'copyright status' of any item that is classified as an 'instance of' anything that is a 'work' (painting, book, etc.). For starters, I assume it would be relatively simple for a bot to run through all the existing items that have a 'creator' with a 'death date' of 100 years ago or more - and tag them as 'copyright status -> public domain'. Equally, (with some important exceptions), to check for artists who are not dead or artworks that are created in the last 50 years, and tag them as 'in copyright'.

Relevant qualifiers could include an 'end date' (perhaps several end-dates for different countries!); a 'proprietor (Q16869121)' (in cases where the named author is different from the copyright holder (e.g. a commissioned work). The Wikidata model allows for conflicting claims to be mapped within the same statement - this gives us the ability to acknowledge that different people often have different interpretations of the same law. Note: this does not account for claims of 'fair use' or 'copyright claim on the artwork digitisation' because these are about representations of the work, not the work itself. Given how much Wikimedians discuss about copyright I would be surprised if this hasn't come up before in some way or another so I didn't want to create a property proposal directly. Wittylama (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of how things are done on Commons, something like "PD-art-70"" would need to be split. The copyrights status is "PD", and that is qualified by the reason "art-70" (or some such). It can also be qualified by "applies in"="United States", and perhaps by "does not apply in"="France". We also need to distinguish copyright status ("Andy Mabbett is the copyright holder of this image") from licence ("Andy Mabbett has licensed this image as CC by-sa 4.0"). I'm not sure that it's necessary hough to add a copyright status property to an artwork here we have the author and their death date - in such cases, the copyright status can be computed. I suggest starting with properties for 'copyright status' and 'licence', and then see what qualifiers we need, as they are rolled out. Let me know if you need help drafting proposals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be able to "compute" the 'copyright status', you also have to use such things as "published in". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And also things like "copyright assigned to", e.g. Peter Pan (Q107190) "copyright assigned to" Great Ormond Street Hospital (Q1349705). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 17:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that assigns ownership of the copyright, so is already covered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "assigned to" and "ownership" is probably not the same thing. I cannot sell, give away or remove my copyright as long as I am under the current jurisdiction. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's doable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we already have all usable licenses? See Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (Q6936496) for example. Jane023 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: We can here have items about any work, also non-free. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the question, however. The question is whether we have items for all licenses currently in use on the projects. --Jane023 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template extraction tool ?

Are there any standard tools to eg take a list of pages (eg from PagePile), scan those pages for a particular template, and give some or all of its arguments ?

I feel sure that somebody must have done this, but I couldn't see anything on the "External tools" page. (Or did I miss something?).

I suppose it's easy enough to write a bespoke scraper; but I couldn't help thinking that someone must have written a standard tool. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatetiger/
It should be possible to combine it with Wikidata:Database reports/templates and items with 0 claims or similar. --- Jura 14:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also https://tools.wmflabs.org/pltools/harvesttemplates/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For my own purpose I have written a js-tool, linked on my userpage, that uses the SPARQL-Endpoint to produce a list of Wp-articles, where I read some parameters out of the infobox, correct them if needed and then push them into wd. I use that tool at the moment to read P2044 (elevation above sea level) of some lakes. I´m afraid this tool is only usable for those who know how to write SPARQL and javascript, because it is an unfinished tool and maybe it will never be finished. (The reason is, that people write into infoboxes lot of things and it is difficult/not possible to automate the reading. So copy that js-file into your own userspace and improve the tool the way you need (I´m using this tool in preview-modus, therefore I don´t know if it works in userpage/common.js --Molarus 17:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey

Hi everyone! Apologies for posting this in English. Translations are very welcome.

We're beginning the second part of the Community Tech team's Community Wishlist Survey, and we're inviting all active contributors to vote on the proposals that have been submitted.

Thanks to you and other Wikimedia contributors, 111 proposals were submitted to the team. We've split the proposals into categories, and now it's time to vote! You can vote for any proposal listed on the pages, using the {{Support}} tag. Feel free to add comments pro or con, but only support votes will be counted. The voting period will be 2 weeks, ending on December 14.

The proposals with the most support votes will be the team's top priority backlog to investigate and address. Thank you for participating, and we're looking forward to hearing what you think!

Community Tech via

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion depth limit exceeded

When using this version of {{Constraint:Units}} where list contains Q-templates ({{Q}}), you get the message Expansion depth limit exceeded. If you roll back Ivan's last edit on that template (which resulted in above version of the template), you can use Q-templates again. I asked Ivan what was the cause and he doesn't know. What he figured out is the following:

  • {{#invoke:Constraints|getCaption|units|123456}} has expansion depth 2.
  • {{Q|123456}} has expansion depth 6.

Combining these two: {{#invoke:Constraints|getCaption|units|{{Q|123456}}}} (which is what happens in the background in the above mentioned version of the template together with a Q-template, you suddenly have a expansion depth of 41 (which is above maximum). Anyone an idea what's causing this? Used modules: Module:Constraint and Module:I18n/constraints. Mbch331 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald has started to add Commons gallery (P935) in all the items which already have this same Commons gallery in "Other sites". My impression was that there is a consensus not to do this? - Brya (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any policy or any consensus against using Commons gallery (P935).
If we look at the historical numbers, one can see that of the 8,469 uses of the property a couple of days ago, 7,676 were on items that also had sitelinks -- ie all except 973.
It is true that on the talk page, in August 2014 User:Ricordisamoa seems to have suggested changing the name to "additional Commons galleries". But that suggestion seems to have attracted no follow-up and was never implemented.
As far as I can see, the apparent reason that this property only had 8,500 uses was that (like so many other properties), nobody had got round to systematically populating the items it applied to.
In particular:
  • I can't see any benefit in having to look up whether an item has a Commons gallery in two different places -- both sitelinks and P935 -- rather than just having all the information available in a single place, on a single property.
  • In the case where an item has two Commons galleries, it seems to me far better to me to record both of them using P935, with appropriate qualifiers to explain the difference between them, rather than one with a sitelink and one with P935 (as User:Brya seems to contend) giving the appearance of a mismatch, a value of P935 that is simply out of date.
  • P935 is also more reliable. Over the last 18 months, Commons users have increasingly been adding WD article-item <-> Commons category sitelinks (see again historical tables linked above), sometimes removing an existing WD article-item <-> Commons gallery sitelink to make this possible. If the Commons gallery is only linked to WD by the sitelink, then we've lost that information. However, if P935 is populated, then it doesn't matter what happens to the sitelink, because the information connecting the item and the gallery is still present in the P935.
  • As a final small point, can I mention that the SPARQL service handles queries involving properties much better than queries involving sitelinks. It extracts property matches directly from a fast-indexed B+ tree. In contrast, sitelink checking involves complex (slow) string manipulation. Larger queries involving properties are therefore far more likely to be successful than similar queries involving sitelinks, without timing out.
For all these reasons, therefore, given that Commons gallery (P935) exists, I think it is entirely appropriate for it to be populated. Jheald (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support Jheald in this. In the confusing mess of Commons-Wikidata-Wikipedia-interlinking, this is one of the few things that shouldn't be controversial. It will preserve links from Commons-galleries to Wikidata-items/ Wikipedia-articles, that could be lost otherwise, because we have still open questions about this whole interlinking concept (and resulting sitelinks-changes). For reference, the confusion about commons-sitelinks is visualised here:
  • Before wikidata: interlinking WP-C
    Before wikidata: interlinking WP-C
  • confusing mess
    confusing mess
  • confusing mess
    confusing mess
  • confusing mess
    confusing mess
  • confusing mess
    confusing mess
Sitelinks, Property:P935/Commons gallery, Property:P373/Commons category. (BTW, this is igoring the commons-files linked by wikidata-properties, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ListProperties?datatype=commonsMedia .) --Atlasowa (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's one last block of 10,000 links to go.
With 80,000 values of Commons gallery (P935) now in place, even though this discussion is underway, there doesn't seem much point in having 80,000 done and 10,000 not done. So I hope nobody objects if I now drop the final 10,000 onto QuickStatements, so at least then there will be consistency, that we can then review. Jheald (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Final 10,000 now underway... Jheald (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is felt to be a good idea, can we then at least get rid of the redundant Commons in the "Other sites"? - Brya (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: Trying to tell Commons what sitelinks it could no longer have to/from the rest of the world would probably go down extremely badly there -- even more so than the (now failed?) attempt to insist that Commons categories' sitelinks should have to go to/from wiki-categories rather than wiki-articles.
It's possible there might be a move towards more WD-article <-> Commons-category sitelinks, rather than WD-article <-> Commons-gallery sitelinks. But (IMO) any such move would need to come from Commons, rather than be pushed from here; and indeed I think might still be quite highly controversial for many people on Wikidata. Probably best to let sleeping dogs lie. Jheald (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that User:Tulsi Bhagat has created a vast number of new items for Commons galleries that had no sitelinks to an existing wiki -- without checking whether we already had an item for the same person/thing. It seems that almost the entire final block of 10,000 items that I have been adding P935s for (the ones with the highest Q-numbers), and possibly quite a lot of the earlier ones too, are these new orphan items.

What to do with these, especially if we already have an item, sitelinked to a Commons category ?

-- eg: item Gregory Peck (Q108366), site-linked to c:Category:Gregory Peck; with new item Gregory Peck (Q21167568) created, site-linked to c:Gregory Peck.

Whatever happens, we only ought to have one item for Gregory Peck (Q108366), and that should have both a Commons category (P373) and a Commons gallery (P935) set.

But the merge script (and presumably tools like Duplicity) won't let us just merge the two items Q108366 and Q21167568, if the two have two different sitelinks to Commons.

So what to do?

  • There's currently no item for "Category:Gregory Peck". It certainly was once part of the grand plan (of some people at least) to see WD category-items created systematically for all such Commons categories, and force Commons categories to sitelink to them rather than real articles. So call this option 1: create a new item "Category:Gregory Peck"; force the Commons cat to sitelink to that; and then merge the new Commons gallery item into the Gregory Peck article item.
  • But in more recent time the trend seems to have been away from that, and instead to let Commons categories sitelink to WD article-items. This is often more popular on Commons, because it gives direct sitelinks to/from Commons cats and wiki articles. And it is often the most efficient solution in terms of Wikidata items, since no extra WD items need to be created, if there are no wiki-categories and no Commons galleries to need extra WD items.
However, in this case there is a Commons gallery as well as a Commons category.
So as option 2: Does the gallery in fact need a Wikidata item? Could it just not be sitelinked to anything on Wikidata? -- ie just delete the Commons gallery sitelink; merge the new Gregory Peck item into the existing Gregory Peck item; and leave the Commons gallery an un-sitelinked orphan.
  • But then perhaps (even in a time of arbitrary access) maybe it is useful for every page on every wiki (including Commons) to be sitelinked to an item on Wikidata -- so Wikidata searches can be used to describe all pages on all wikis; and so that any templates on the wiki-page don't need to rely on any literals stored on the wiki-page, but can be written to (by default) navigate entirely using information stored on Wikidata.
This could give option 3: leave the Commons category sitelinked to the main item Gregory Peck (Q108366), let that hold the main P373 and P935 pointers to the Commons content; but keep the new Q21167568 as a stub item with just instance of (P31) = "Commons gallery" and main subject (P921) = Q108366.

What do people think? Should the new Q21167568 created by User:Tulsi Bhagat be kept, or should it go away? And do we think Commons galleries do "need" a site-linked wikidata item, or is it okay if they are "orphans" without one?

I honestly don't know what is the best way forward. But, by whatever way or other, the present situation does definitely need to be cleared up. Jheald (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a sleepy project Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons, a closed Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links without recommendations and no clear guideline. Why exactly is it necessary to dublicate sitelinks to a property. Easier SPARQLing is not a reasson at all. Sitelinks to a commomscat should be removed and replaced by the gallery link. --Succu (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion recently in german at Wikidata:Forum/Archiv/2015/10#Commons Category unter "Andere Websites", Succu. There is a list of reasons why "remove and replace commonscat by commons-gallery sitelinks" would suck. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little point in having a Wikidata item with just one outgoing link. This, admittedly, makes it possible to get from Wikidata to that project, but not to get from that project to Wikidata or anywhere else. I would merge these two items without giving it any thought.
        Also, it is a lot more helpful for Commons categories to link to content pages than to categories. Hardly any users are interested in categories beyond the purpose they serve in organising local content (here and there, there are users focussing on categories as a purpose unto itself; these make the life of the users-who-are using-categories-to-organise-local-content miserable). - Brya (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to underline this last paragraph by Brya: it is a lot more helpful for Commons categories to link to content pages than to categories. Hardly any users are interested in categories beyond the purpose they serve in organising local content. Also, lots of these wikidata items for categories are only linked to enwiki-categories and are useless for other projects (and enwiki categories are a huge mess). --Atlasowa (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to Jhealds option 2: leave the Commons category sitelinked to the main item Gregory Peck (Q108366), let that hold the main P373(Property:Commons category) and P935(Property:Commons gallery) pointers to the Commons content; and delete the new Q21167568 item for Commons-gallery that serves no real purpose/use. (I hope i got this right) --Atlasowa (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of orphan galleries

  • Here's a query tinyurl.com/hnl6bcb for items with a Commons gallery, but no sitelinks to any Wikipedias. In all, it returns 7576 hits.
Some of these are legitimate -- eg for books, where we have a gallery of pictures -- and there are statements that can be made about them. These typically have lower Q-numbers.
However, the great majority -- probably at least 7500 items -- are the ones created by Tulsi's bot. These are the ones in alphabetical order from Commons:Reto Wikimedia Semana i Fall 2015/Campus Ciudad de México (Q21081482) onwards.
Some of these we may be able to tie to existing items. Some (eg for books, events, etc) may be worth turning into proper items with a more complete basic set of descriptive statements. Others it's not clear what will be the best approach to deal with. Jheald (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To start with, here tinyurl.com/q8hjbaa are 91 of the above that already have an item with a Commons gallery (P935) property pointing to them. Merging may not make sense in all of these cases, but it does appear to for most.
If anyone can think of any cunning ways to help match any of the rest of the 7500 to plausible matches, now is the time for ideas. Jheald (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One set of "orphan" galleries that it may be worth keeping items for are those of the WikiCommons Atlas project. I have now added instance of (P31) = Wikimedia Commons atlas page (Q21623879) to these, to make them easy to find. (eg open Wikimedia Commons atlas page (Q21623879)  View with Reasonator View with SQID in Reasonator, and expand the "instance of" tab, in the incoming links section. Jheald (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews, Wikispecies and MediaWiki now have data access

Hey folks :)

Wikinews, Wikispecies and MediaWiki now have data access. Meta will follow on 15th as we had to delay it to not interfere with the most important fundraising days.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting descriptions for language nds

I am trying to merge Q19616710 into Q7316913 but get the titular error - how can this be resolved? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tried and done. --ValterVB (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tricky one

The September 11 attacks (Q10806) are currently described as located in the administrative territorial entity of New York. Obviously, that is not strictly true (e.g. the Pentagon is not in New York). I'm not sure how this is best addressed, but I imagine someone with more Wikidata experience knows how a case like this should be handled. - Jmabel (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe multiple located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) with applies to part (P518)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) claim and add location (P276)=New York City (Q60) and location (P276)=Arlington County (Q107126). located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) should not be used because September 11 attacks (Q10806) is not a geographical location. --Pasleim (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - Jmabel (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the mess with P357 (P357)

Hi,

P357 (P357) Title-string has been replaced by title (P1476) a long year ago, but at this moment, 73437 items have a link to P357 (P357) :(

to make it worse, roughly half of those are used as sourcing info, to indicate the title of articles online, for ex, which can be deduced from the number of items with P357 (P357) property, which are currently 35844 (http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/index.php?language=en&project=wikipedia&category=&depth=12&wdq=claim[357]&pagepile=&statementlist=&run=Run&mode_manual=or&mode_cat=or&mode_wdq=and&mode_find=or&chunk_size=10000).

Well, the biggest problem is, it is impossible to change the property from P357 to P1416 automatically, since a language has to be indicated, and, some items may have several source info with P357.

The second big problem is to be able to find the items where the property is used in Source, and find it in the item... I tried on Ireland (Q27), and I just couldn't... the item doesn't even load completely in my browser... :(

So, what do we do, now, to clean up this mess, and try and remove this OBSOLETE property ?

Is there any way to ease this ? or shall it be done by human-hand-eye processing only… and last for as long as the removal of old P107 property ?

Thanks for any tool suggested to try and ease this process. --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to write a tool to ease to process of moving such statements. Should be finished in the next few days. --Pasleim (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a large use of this property together with "imported from: English Wikipedia". The title-property is then used to indicate the name of the used article. In those cases, the language should be English. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Do we need a title for sources like that? --Kolja21 (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Imported from: English Wikipedia" gives almost no information at all, so why not. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander, Kolja21, Pasleim, Hsarrazin: We can't do an automatic conversion because we don't have the language value as statement. We could define the language from the language of the work in some case. But we are waiting all the extension of the language list with the addition of an undermined language to fully convert all uses of P357 (P357). This is a phabricator bug (T78006) Snipre (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Snipre: I offered you a small set of claims that can be changed, but I do not say that other claims are easy to change. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander:I prefer to work once on that problem but if you want to do some corrections already now, don't wait on me. Snipre (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
@Snipre: - I know that it can't be automated.
However, a semi-automated tool that could find those hidden uses of the P357 (P357), ask the contributor what language it is, then create a new title (P1476), and erase the deprecated property would be very useful, either on a one-shot use (on item found), or through a semi-automatic interface ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Snipre: I already replace this property when I come across it, but I do not search for it on a daily basis. Replace it with a "unknown language" when we in many cases can identify the language looks to me like the wrong way to go. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Q3620669

Is it possible to protect Q3620669? People try to enter [1] over and over again. But tt0078788 is not the id of the redux version. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of protecting the item, there are three easier ways to solve the issue:
  1. Convince yourself that it is really the wrong Id. Looking at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/releaseinfo it seems to me that IMDb is handling both the 1979 and 2001 version under the same Id.
  2. Remove the wrong Id from the place where it gets imported from, i.e. it:Apocalypse_Now_Redux#Collegamenti_esterni
  3. add the right value to Apocalypse Now Redux (Q3620669) or if no IMDb identifier exists for that movie, add IMDb ID (P345)=novalue --Pasleim (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pasleim: Thank you for your steps. What to you think about Q3346699? We created a IMDb ID (P345)=novalue claim because the IMDb ids belong to Q21468403 and Q21468405. But the import bot didn't care. And we shouldn't remove them from enwiki because there are no separate articles for the two parts. --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the IP. Hope it will read my message. I don't know what else we can to to prevent such edits. --Pasleim (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic entity associated with a list

e.g. List of landmarks in King County, Washington (Q6624909): what would be the property here to associate with datum King County (Q108861)? Should I simply use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)? The list does not have a geographic location; the items do. Are there special properties related to lists in this respect? And is there somewhere I should have been able to look this up? - Jmabel (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use is a list of (P360) = cultural property (Q2065736) with qualifier located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) = King County (Q108861)
This gives a specification for the list, and if you can then look at the list item in Reasonator, it will be able to show a list of all items that currently correspond to that specification.
The property located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) should not be used on its own as a main property except on items that are actually locations themselves -- so not on list items; also not on event items that happened to take place in a particular location. (For the latter use location (P276) instead, then P131 on the actual location).
You could conceivably use applies to jurisdiction (P1001), but I don't think anybody ever does -- it would be pretty redundant, once you've specified the P360.
However, you should set the general country (P17) = United States of America (Q30), so that the item is included in searches for all items that relate to the United States. Jheald (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons category format

Any idea why Commons categories don't link correctly? The formatter URL looks correct to me. - Jmabel (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Commons category (P373). - Jmabel (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "don't link correctly? I checked a few items and couldn't find a problem. If it doesn't work on some id's and does work on others, please provide examples. Mbch331 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably just a usual thing, that sometimes external links get shown by the UI, and sometimes they don't. (Nobody seems to quite know why). Sometimes refreshing the page can then make the link show, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it can take anything up to 5 refreshes to make the link show; sometimes it doesn't show even then. I don't know what causes the problem, but it seems it can happen for any property with an external link, eg it very often happens for identifier properties as well (though Commons category and Commons gallery may be hit more often than others -- perhaps because they may be further down the page (?)). If all else fails, there's always Reasonator. If you haven't activated it already, I strongly recommend the gadget that installs Reasonator as an extra link at the bottom of the sidebar. Reasonator appears to have no problem with external links. Jheald (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds to me like a cache issue, have you tried ?action=purge ? Popcorndude (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like the same problem I reported in phab:T115794. Ever since August, I've been having issues with gadgets and common.js stuff which touch the statement section of the page not working consistently. - Nikki (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have also seen this problem. Reguyla (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a property for something like performed at or spoken at?

Hi all

I'm looking for a property that would allow you to show that a person had performed or spoken at a particular event or place e.g a person had spoken at a conference e.g TED, or a performer had the Sydney Opera House. Does this exist?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

participant (P710) to link to people participated in a given event (e.g. ⁠) and participant in (P1344) to link to events people have participated in (e.g. ⁠) which might be what you are looking for, the events having the location. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Participant seems a little bit vague, it could refer to someone who simply attended a conference, I guess I'm looking for something that specifies they were active e.g a speech or performance but if its widely used then this will be fine. John Cummings (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could use the P794 (P794) qualifier I suppose to do that, but see also the section immediately below as an answer to that question might help with this also. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also speaker (P823), connecting an event to a person, which again could be used with a qualifier. Jheald (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, so to use an example e.g the TED conference in 2014, you would use speaker (P823) on the conference item to link the speakers with the qualifier 2014, but how would you link to TED on the speakers' item? Would you use the same property or use another? John Cummings (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary to have inverse property: this can be deduced by logical query. Better avoid to create the link person->event because for people like politicians or actors this will create hundreds of new statement in their items and will lead to heavy sets of data to load when opening the item. Inverse properties are a nightmare to keep up-to-date and they just create big and redundant data sets.
If you want to find all events where a person spoke just use a query to extract the events which have property speaker (P823) with the value corresponding to the item of the person. Snipre (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to note the principal participant?

How do you note which of a list of participants is the principal one, e.g. star guest, guest of honour, headline act, principal speaker, etc? Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (Q7096523) has a large list of participants, but I can't find a way to note that Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (Q131691) (prime minister at the time) was the guest of honour. It would be possible to mark that statement as preferred rank, but that feels a bit blunt and doesn't give an indication of why. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could make a item for "guest of honour" and use it with P794 (P794) as qualifier. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make WikiProjects more prominent

I think we have hidden the WikiProjects below to many layers of weird links. Can a few people comment on a suggested change of the community portal that would make the WikiProjects more visible. I hope that more people will sign up for the projects when they are more visible: Wikidata_talk:Community_portal#Wikiproject_Links --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. We need to work together inside WikiProjects. Currently we find solutions on data modeling in discussion (how can I import that data, which property can I use for that, which are the differences between this property and this one,... ) and all that knowledge disappears in archives. Snipre (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for Disambiguation

Just to increase the visibility: request for a new tool --ValterVB (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem like a stupid question and I apologize if it has already come up but is there any interest or intent of linking pages to other things outside the WMF sphere of influence like Wikia projects? Maybe even something basic like linking in the Other sites box? There are a lot of items that apply to various Wikia projects, especially on commons and ENWP and I think it could be a good thing to consider doing at some point if there is interest. Reguyla (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think linking to Wikia in the sitelinks section is a good idea. Wikia is a non-WMF site. Linking to outside WMF domain should only be done through statements. Mbch331 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Mbch said. I don't think there is any interest in having 'sitelinks' to Wikia (like we have to wikipedia and WMF projects) but no objection in principal to linking to Wikia using a suitable property - though no one has, as yet, proposed such a property.
Wikia could, of course, add such links to their articles and can write code to add data from wikidata to their Wikia articles and wouldn't need permission from wikidata to do it.. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going around the unconnected pages in Simple English, connecting the ones that should be connected so the interlanguage links will show up. Today I stumbled across Punjabi language. It doesn't appear to be connected, as there are no interlanguage links in the left hand column. However, when I try to connect it I get the error message, "The page you wanted to link with is already attached to an item on the central data repository which links to Punjabi language on this site. Items can only have one page per site attached. Please choose a different page to link with." Going to Q58635 shows a link to simple from that item, and it goes to the page I'm trying to link, so why don't the links show up on simple? ONUnicorn (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime can happen, if you make a null edit the interlink will appear. --ValterVB (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's on https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjabi_language&action=info
For a full purge, use https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=purge&forcelinkupdate&forcerecursivelinkupdate&titles= followed by the title. --- Jura 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ONUnicorn (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=280004299"