Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat

Edit links
Add topic
Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata:Project Chat)
Latest comment: 5 hours ago by Cl3phact0 in topic In Praise of Shadows


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

Retrieving a qualifier from Wikipedia

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

By using {{#property:P856}} I can retrieve the link in P856 of a linked page here in Wikidata (in my case, this one). Language of work or name is a required qualifier for official website. How can I retrieve the value of "language" into Wikipedia? I mean: how can I ask "bring me the P407 of the P856 of this item"? CasteloBrancomsg 15:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

You can use Module:Wd (Q24733825) for this. {{#invoke:Wd|property|qualifier|P856|P407}} -> https://portal.fpa.pt/seleccoes/selecao-a-masculina/ (Portuguese). {{#invoke:Wd|qualifier|P856|P407}} -> Portuguese retrieves the language only. To make the examples work here, I've manually specified the item as in {{#invoke:Wd|qualifier|Q786147|P856|P407}} but you don't need to do that if you use the module on the linked page. Now, I can't really explain exactly how this module works in a comment so I'd suggest you read the documentation. Warudo (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot, @Warudo! It worked for me. CasteloBrancomsg 23:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Марк білий

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

як мені зробити щоб дані про марка білого були в публічно як мені так опублікувати Степан Джумага (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Степан Джумага: You may want to ask basic questions like this on the Russian-language version of this page: Wikidata:Форум. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Or Wikidata:Кав'ярня if that was Ukrainian - sorry my cyrillic is rudimentary. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Степан Джумага: Я зараз покращую ваш элемент про Білого (Marko Bilyi (Q137886251)) --Wolverène (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

how do i get image frames translated?????

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

i was trying to get the wimpy kid movie translated but I was having no luck to finding a solution for it Jellyfish89 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is this a movie under copyright? Wikidata cannot help you translate an actual movie. Secretlondon (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
no not the film Jellyfish89 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can you link to what you mean, then? Secretlondon (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Q74671) is it Jellyfish89 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It looks like it's under copyright - where are the frames? Secretlondon (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

continuously changes / unstable identifier (Q23611587)

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Would anyone protest if i split "unstable identifier" into it's own seperate item? There's a huge difference between statements that by their very nature are not static vs. unstable identifiers that frequently deprecates or frequently redirects Trade (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Trade: I think the current scale (never changes (Q23611288), sometimes changes (Q24025284), continuously changes / unstable identifier (Q23611587), values can be added (Q23611840)) is sufficient for our needs. If continuously changes / unstable identifier (Q23611587) was split, I would have trouble deciding between the two. Dexxor (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
One is for statements, other is for identifiers. What do you have trouble deciding between exactly? Trade (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Trade: Ahh, now I see. I still think we could use sometimes changes (Q24025284) instead of "unstable identifier" for identifiers that often change. It's probably not worth to create "unstable identifier" when it would only be used on 13 properties; or are you planning to migrate identifiers with stability sometimes changes (Q24025284) to "unstable identifier"? Dexxor (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
How about just "Identifier values frequently gets deleted" Trade (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, this one is very specific. But if you have a good use case for it, why not? Dexxor (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
We already know what the datatype is, so splitting it by datatype is redundant. I agree with Dexxor that sometimes changes (Q24025284) seems sufficient. If you think we still need an extra frequency level, I think you should propose a value which is about how often it changes, independent of the datatype, and describe what the intended purpose of the distinction is between it and sometimes changes (Q24025284). - Nikki (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Integrating Yourself to Science dataset in Wikidata

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I would like to ask your opinion about integrating the Yourself to Science dataset into Wikidata: https://yourselftoscience.org/data .

The dataset is completely open source, in the public domain (CC0) and is already aligned to Wikidata. The dataset contains all the opportunities for citizens to contribute part of themselves (such as biological samples and body/tissues) and data (such as genetic, wearable data, etc.) to research. The types of opportunities are very diverse, ranging from commercial or university projects to clinical trials to smartphone apps etc.

This is a report with all the items and their presence/absence on Wikidata. I think the dataset can help enrich the Wikidata database, for example: it identifies missing items like Apple Research and SPARK for Autism (from Simons Foundation) and enriches them (including existing ones) with organization, data types (like genome and health data), headquarter country, citations etc.

Yourself to Science's dataset uses persistent UUIDs and provides RDF/TTL, JSON, and CSV endpoints. Also, if you have any suggestions on how to improve it and its compatibility with Wikidata I'm happy to implement them.

P.S. I want to specify that I have a conflict of interest as I am directly involved in the project. Digressivo (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

A cursory glance suggests the site is a list of 70 worthy projects. Is the dataset you talk about more than just a list of organisations and their areas of research, scope etc. It would be a good idea for someone to spend an afternoon checking we have the information, but I'm not sure what more integration you have in mind. We have described by source (P1343) which could be used to connect WD to the site, but I'm not clear it needs a dedicated property. First stage is to get an entry for the site itself, but it needs to be notable and preferably not done by someone with a conflict of interest. Vicarage (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Vicarage thank you.
So do you think the best approach is to periodically manually integrate the missing information?
Also, if a dataset is used as a source of information, isn't the practice to at least put a reference to the original source?
Obviously the dataset is CC0 so there is no legal obligation, but I thought that Wikidata tends to give credit/reference to the source used (I am pretty new to it, I've never imported a dataset).
Regarding WD:N, I don't know if Yourself to Science already meets the requirements: the item wouldn't contain a sitelink and isn't yet described by multiple external serious references, but maybe it fulfills a Wikidata structural need? Digressivo (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can see no merit for anything automated here. A reference can always be to a bald URL, but mentioning a item on WD as well is better. . I add sites because I think their pages are worth mentioning and a described by source (P1343) is better than a bald URL, but do that someone needs to add the item, and that is best not done by someone with close contact with the organisation. I'm not sure there sufficient content on your site for me to do that, but ask around in relevant WikiProjects, and someone else might. The rules about external serious references don't really work for standalone websites anyway. Vicarage (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Vicarage thank you for your guidance.
I will follow your suggestion to ask in the relevant WikiProjects if someone else thinks it might add it as an item.
But in the case there is no immediate interest in creating that item (to use it as described by source (P1343)), if I understood correctly, the standard fallback is that I can proceed by manually enriching existing items and creating new notable ones (like OrganDonor.gov) using the Yourself to Science URL as the reference URL (P854). Digressivo (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
yes, that woukd be very useful to the project. We don't want to put people off contributing, its just we see far too many people who only want to promote themselves, so its great that you want to do more. The ideal would be that in time your website is fed by a query from here, so you benefit from others updating the items and adding more. Vicarage (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Far-right (Q127869500), radical right (Q21848959) and extreme right (Q204481)

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago26 comments4 people in discussion

Hello everyone,

Following this discussion in the French-language Wikidata:Bistro, I was advised to discuss it here as well.

On July 26, 2024, I created the item far-right (or in Dutch: uiterst rechts) (Q127869500). A while ago, I had been exploring the topic of far-right, radical right and extreme right. I came across this article, which contains an interesting diagram on page 32 in figure 2.1. Tore Bjørgo and Jacob Ravndal developed a typology for the radical and extreme right, based on three studies, including one by political scientist Cas Mudde, in which it is striking that the radical and extreme right are grouped under the umbrella term "far-right". This seemed to me to be a really good solution to all the difficulties associated with the three terms. The extreme right is something that the Nazis were – anti-democratic and violent. But in Europe, you now see radical right-wing parties emerging. To call them extreme right-wing is, in my opinion, misplaced. That is why there is a difference between the radical right and the extreme right. But how should you refer to those two together? To me, far-right seems the most logical. Radical right and extreme right are known for their far right-wing ideology, but they are not the same. The diagram I mentioned earlier is also included in this English-language article.

So my question here is: do you agree with me that far-right (Q127869500), radical right (Q21848959) and extreme right (Q204481) should be three different Wikidata items? In my opinion, this would be appropriate, if only to demonstrate that they are three different things (even though there are no articles under far-right (yet)).

I'm curious to hear your responses!

Kind regards,

Perquirius (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @Perquirius.
If I understand what you mean, "far right" should be an item including "radical right" and "extreme-right" and extreme-right should be also known as fascism or nazism.

Initially, far-right (Q204481) was created in 2012, then was created radical right (Q21848959) in 2015 (Q204481 means at this time far-right) and far-right (Q127869500) in 2024 (Q21848959 means at this time radical right in Europe).

Those changes have several effects:
It seems to me those issues could be avoided by identifying the notions already described by far-right (Q204481) and far-right (Q127869500).
Changes on these items should be made cautiously regarding the consequences which could occur in different languages of WD.
For example, it makes appear 2 items with same denomination "extrême-droite" in french as we discussed: far-right (Q127869500) and far-right (Q204481) which is inconsistent, and that in french, "droite radicale" is said used in anglosaxon cultur where "extreme-droite" is used in french.
If the goal is to designate current groups with same ideology of fascism (Q6223) and Nazism (Q7310), why could we not use neo-fascism (Q696116) and neo-Nazism (Q151250)? Lupin~fr (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I now see that @Wikibility has changed the English-language main term "right-wing extremism" to "far-right" at Q204481. Now it's getting a bit messy, I think. 😅 Why would the far right be the same as the extreme right? And why would there be a difference between the far right and the radical right? Why don't we just lump everything that's right-wing together – alt right, New Right, right-wing populism, right-liberalism, center-right, etc. I might reveal the answer why we shouldn't do that: because they are all different forms and types of right-wing politics. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wikibility, this change of yours makes it even more complicated. The website you added states that far right is "also known as the extreme right, ultra right or radical right". So that means all three items (far right, radical right and extreme right) would/should be the same item? 😅 Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments. I think there is some confusion between terms used interchangeably in sources and concepts being identical in Wikidata.
My edits were not meant to say that far right, radical right and extreme right are the same thing. The aim was to align far-right with the existing modeling of far-left (Q1129409), where an umbrella term covers different currents. Wikibility (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply, @Wikibility! I understand what you mean. The only problem is that extreme left, radical left and far left are never really discussed, at least not where I live. For example, when a political party is labelled as radical or extreme left by someone, no one seems to really care. I never really hear about it on public or commercial broadcasters or in newspapers. Only in alternative (right-wing) media do they mention animal rights organizations or anti-fascists as being extreme leftists. But I never hear the major news broadcasters talk about the radical or extreme left. However, if you look at the radical right and the extreme right, these terms appear in the media on a daily basis. Many news channels talk about extreme right parties, but parties such as Party for Freedom (Q332739), Forum for Democracy (Q28163962) and JA21 (Q104244010) are obviously not happy when they are labeled as extreme right. They feel they are being framed and demonized. In 2024, the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Q233262) stated that labeling a party as far-right is a Nazi comparison.
Personally, I think that Wikidata items describing far-right philosophies or ideologies should be treated differently than far-left philosophies or ideologies (more nuanced), because they are discussed more and (in my opinion) researched more. But if we had to draw a line, I would rather do the same for the far left (that would be the umbrella term for the extreme left and radical left) than lump everything on the far right together. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that they are all slightly different, and parties may be described as one term, but not the other.Secretlondon (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Therefore, I would suggest:
This is an umbrella term for parties, movements and individuals operating on the right flank of the political spectrum. It describes political currents that reject or challenge liberal-democratic norms, and that often consider social inequality or hierarchy as natural or desirable. The term covers both radical-right and extreme-right groups, highlighting that the far-right is a broad category rather than a single ideology.
Radical-right groups participate in democratic processes and formally respect the rules of democracy, but many of their positions conflict with liberal-democratic values. They often emphasize strong nationalism, strict immigration policies or skepticism toward institutions such as courts, media or the European Union. While critical of the system, they aim to influence it from within rather than overthrow it.
Extreme-right groups reject democratic principles outright and may support or condone the use of violence. They oppose pluralism and minority rights, advocating authoritarian, ethnically exclusive or fundamentally anti-democratic solutions. Unlike the radical-right, their goal is often to replace the democratic system rather than work within it.
In my opinion, this is simply the easiest and most logical solution. See also: https://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/id/vmdhi81858yy/nieuws/verschil_tussen_radicaal_en, for example. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Perquirius what do you think about my suggestions? Lupin~fr (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think it's OK! But the only thing I wouldn't do is refer to the extreme right as the far right. I would not use any term as a synonym for another term due to possible confusion. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think we’re actually quite close to a workable solution if we separate conceptual modeling from term usage in sources.
What I’m proposing is the following hierarchy, which reflects how these concepts are treated in much of the political-science literature and avoids conflating distinct phenomena:
In this model:
  • left–right politics
  • far-right (Q127869500) functions as an umbrella term for political currents on the extreme end of the right-wing spectrum.
  • right-wing extremism (Q204481) is a subset of the far-right and can be described as: a form of far-right ideology that rejects democratic principles and pluralism, and promotes authoritarian or exclusionary political systems, sometimes including the use of violence.
  • This allows radical right and extreme / extremist right to remain distinct concepts, rather than being merged via labels or aliases.
This approach avoids using any term as a synonym for another, reduces cross-language confusion, and keeps Wikidata aligned with how these concepts are differentiated in reliable sources.
Following this, en:Far-right politics would best be linked under far-right (Q127869500) rather than under right-wing extremism. Wikibility (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a good solution, @Wikibility!
The only thing I don't quite understand is why some articles linked to radical right (Q21848959) only discuss the radical right in Europe, while other articles discuss the radical right in general. I don't want to be difficult, but shouldn't this be two items?
My suggestion would be:
What do you think about this? Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm just thinking, but it might be better to rename all articles about "radical right in ..." to "far-right in ...", so that articles can also be about the extreme right, not just the radical right. If everyone agrees, I'm happy to sort everything out! Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
If I understand well, this nomenclature would include neo-fascism (Q696116) and neo-Nazism (Q151250) as subset of right-wing extremism, am I right? Lupin~fr (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Neo)fascism and (neo)Nazism can be fall under right-wing extremism, but not all right-wing extremist parties are fascist or Nazi. However, fascist and Nazi parties are right-wing extremist. At least, that's how I understand it. So (neo)fascism and (neo)Nazism could be named under has part(s) (P527). Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That works for me, @Perquirius
I agree with the proposed structure, but it will require some careful cleanup because a number of interlinked items will need to be realigned. For example, I recently came across a political party with a right-wing political alignment that is currently linked to right-wing extremism, where far-right would be more appropriate. I expect there are quite a few cases like this.
As part of this, right-wing extremism will probably need some adjustments:
  • its instance of statements,
  • its label and description (to clearly scope it to extremism rather than the far-right in general),
  • and likely the associated category and sitelinks.
There are also related items such as another right-wing extremism and right-wing extremist that should be reviewed to avoid overlap or duplication.
Historically, Q204481 was created in 2012 with an English label corresponding to far-right and a description referring to far-right politics. Over time (especially around 2018), additional extremist-related labels and aliases were added, and the item gradually morphed into its current, somewhat ambiguous state. Untangling that history is probably unavoidable if we want a clean and durable model.
If there’s agreement on the hierarchy and scoping, I’m happy to help with the necessary cleanup and realignment work. Wikibility (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
As far as I'm concerned, there is an agreement! Does that mean that Q204481 will become the item "far right" or "extreme right/right-wing extremism"? Perquirius (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
And one more question: what do we do with Q7280496? Now it has the label "radical right in the United States", but wouldn't it be better to say "far right in the United States"? Perquirius (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Update: I have now created radical right in Europe (Q138136993). I have moved all articles that fell under radical right (Q21848959) but only concerned Europe (i.e., with Europe in the title) to radical right in Europe (Q138136993). The term "radical right" in radical right in Europe (Q138136993) and radical right in the United States (Q7280496) could possibly be changed to "far right". Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
As far as I understand the agreement, Q204481 would remain scoped to extreme right / right-wing extremism, while far-right functions as the broader umbrella term. In that structure, right-wing extremism is a subset of the far-right, not a synonym for it.
From a practical Wikidata perspective, it would probably make sense to choose the option that involves the least amount of moving of sitelinks and inter-item links, provided it remains conceptually correct. Q204481 has historically accumulated links related to extremism, so keeping it aligned with right-wing extremism may require fewer large-scale changes than redefining it as far-right. Conceptual clarity should come first, and minimising disruption second.
Regarding Q7280496 and Q138136993, the corresponding English Wikipedia articles are Radical right (United States) and Radical right (Europe). For consistency with the sitelinks, it might be preferable to keep the label radical right on Wikidata and add far right as an alias where appropriate, rather than renaming the items outright.
Renaming them to far right in … could create inconsistency with existing article titles and may also blur the conceptual distinction we’ve just established between far-right (umbrella term) and radical right (a specific current within it).
Of course, I’m open to further thoughts, but aligning with sitelinks while preserving the conceptual distinctions seems the most stable approach. Wikibility (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's what I had in mind too. I will post a comment about our reorganization on all talk pages concerning the affected articles! Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It seems there are misunderstanding about the process.
This discussion began because an item makes appear inconsistency between items.
This discussion makes appear a consensus about the perimeter of items, but nothing about the naming, and logically, it should be consistent in each language with the usual naming.
Since in french, radical right in Europe (Q138136993) designate a political movement named « extrême-droite », I renamed it "extrême droite politique" which literally significates "political extreme-right".
However, @Perquirius cancelled it [1] in french "droite radicale" which is not the usual name.
He made some other renaming in the same direction in french[2] (renaming "delà de la droite politique" without any sense in french) or [3],
I do not understand why @Perquirius decides the designation of items in a language he does not seem to understand.
Not sure radical right in Europe (Q138136993) (french movement) began in 70' since Poujadisme (Q15055256) was one of the first party of political movement named "extrême-droite". Lupin~fr (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lupin, so, if I understand correctly, there is no such thing as the far right or radical right in France? I saw that you had also changed the label for radical right in French to "extrême droite politique". If everything to the far right is considered extreme right-wing in France, how is a distinction made between violent, undemocratic groups and nonviolent, democratic groups? Anyway, I'll stay away from it. I noticed that @Fromage604 had undone my changes: [4] and [5]. I'm fine with anything, as long as uiterst rechts remains the umbrella term, encompassing extreemrechts on the one hand and radicaal-rechts on the other. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
no, everything to the far right is not extrême droite politique. For example, fascism (Q6223), Nazism (Q7310),, neo-fascism (Q696116) and neo-Nazism (Q151250) are far right, they are named "extrême droite" but not "extrême droite politique".

This is why I added "politique" to the name in several items like [6], [7], [8].
This "politique" makes the difference between a violent group and a political party. There is a recent reflexion about should "extrême-droite" be renamed to another word, but this reflexion is still in processing, so we should keep the historical name for now. Lupin~fr (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
In addition, in France, "droite radicale" is used to name the right wing for historical government parties, where "extrême droite" is used to designate parties which never accessed the government. Lupin~fr (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that clarifies things! Thank you for the explanation! It's kind of strange, isn't it, that the word "politique" determines whether or not a group or party is violent? So, in theory, a political party could never be violent? I am curious to see what the outcome of that recent reflection will be! Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hoffmann syndrome

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hoffmann syndrome (Q119717032), Hoffmann syndrome (Q9390250), and Hoffmann syndrome (Q17561238) seem like the same thing, but I'm not quite sure, because the English Wikipedia article for Hoffmann syndrome (Q119717032), the Polish Wikipedia article for Hoffmann syndrome (Q9390250), and the German Wikipedia article for Hoffmann syndrome (Q17561238) seem to say similar but different things (although I've had to rely on machine translation for the Polish and German articles, because I don't speak Polish or German). TTWIDEE (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

They all say substantially the same thing, just with differing degrees of detail. I've merged the three into Hoffmann syndrome (Q9390250) and cleaned up the remainder. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help with disambiguation page items

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello can someone confirm I did this correctly: Xu Ya (Q138047578) thanks Myrealnamm (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

And also I don't create a Wikimedia disambiguation page for the enwp article en:Touw i just use Touw (Q37079748)? Myrealnamm (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, as the page is categorised as a surname and not a disambiguation page; I moved the link from Touw (Q27949183) (the disambiguation page) to Touw (Q37079748). Peter James (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #718

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2026-02-09. Missed the previous one? See issue #717.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Wiki Clarity Tool: Clarity Tool is a lightweight web application built to empower editors across Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons. It helps contributors identify missing information in articles and suggests structured data from Wikidata to fill those gaps.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • Mobile editors can now edit String and External ID datatypes directly in the mobile view. To help improve this new interface, Wikimedia Deutschland is looking for volunteers for UX testing sessions. Participants will be compensated for their time. Sign up here (greatquestion) and learn more on the project page: Mobile editing of statements

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • Dumps: We published the report from our research into the user experience with Wikidata's dumps.
  • Mobile editing: We are finalizing the support for quantity, monolingual text, mathematical expression and musical notation statements as well as a first version for coordinate statements.
  • Wikidata integration in the Wikimedia projects: We have continued our investigation into existing Lua modules in order to find more ways in which we can reduce unwanted entries from Wikidata in Recent changes and watchlists on Wikipedia and co. We found a number of options that we are looking into now. (phab:T416822, phab:T416825, phab:T416826, phab:T416827)
  • Wikidata Vector embedding: We added German to the embedding (next to English, French and Arabic)

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

Properties ready for creation

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Category:Properties ready for creation is again backlogged; there are currently 40 proposals awaiting action, some of which have been ready marked as ready for two weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are quite a lot at the top of this Petscan list that either I am the only supporter on or it is not clear to me they really are ready, these would benefit from at least one more person looking at them. I can't create them myself at this time. ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's fair. Is there no-one else who can work on them?
The 9th entry on that list is Biographical Dictionary of British and Irish Architects 1800-1950 ID. It has four supporters, plus me as proponent, and no opposition. It has been marked as ready since 28 January. Hundreds of IDs are already matched in Mix'n'match. You are not one of the commenters. ;) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, see ‎Biographical Dictionary of British and Irish Architects 1800-1950 person ID (P14126). @Petr Matas: as a new property creator, would you mind looking at some of the older ones from the list there? ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Changes in permissions are not permanent. If you reassure the community you will not use them for personal reasons I don't see why you can't be re-granted them. I'm big on pinky promises. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Personal reasons"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Subject named as.. for a qualifier?

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What's the way to apply subject named as (P1810) to a qualifier?

As an example, with a highly contrived scenario: how does one record the fact that John Doe had a different name at the time of discovery?

has part(s) (P527)secret (Q113925598)

discoverer or inventor (P61)John Doe (Q302057)

I know it's impossible because you can only go one level deep with qualifiers, but are there examples of qualifiers needing qualifiers and Wikidata handling them?

— A diehard editor (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

has part(s) (P527) secret (Q113925598) looks to me like bad modeling. Can you point to a real scenario you face within Wikidata for which you are seeking a solution? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah, my localhost Wikibase (thus, not meeting the definition of "a real scenario within Wikidata"). If asking about that isn't allowed, I apologize in advance. A diehard editor (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@A diehard editor: I think the only real solution in Wikibase is to have a separate item for the event, in your case the "discovery", then you can have statements on the discovery item that allow such qualifiers. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I think statement is subject of (P805) should have me covered on that front. Thanks! A diehard editor (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Property talk:P856 gives messy, incomplete, and contradictory advice on how to handle dead/hijacked links. Specifically regarding when a link is defunct but has not been replaced with a newer link (for example, when a company goes out of business). Link-rot is a very, very common issue.

Some have proposed adding 'end date : unknown' as a qualifier. These qualifiers only accept specific dates and reject 'unknown'. (Am I missing something?) Figuring out the exact time/date when a site went down is an unreasonable ask, and it's starting to feel a lot like unnecessary yak shaving at that point.

If there is a better way, or even just a better discussion of this, that talk page should explain or link to it. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

earliest end date (P8554) and latest date (P1326) can be used to put lower and upper bounds on the end date, if it not known exactly. M2Ys4U (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is that what's expected? So how would someone update the info to explain that a site is dead without guessing? More importantly, where is this explained? Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
See unknown value Help for how to set unknown as the value. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Need help merging

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Sorry I still don't really get how to do this myself. There's an English page for "Tineola bisselliella" (the common clothes moth) which links to a Spanish page of the same name. That's fine.

There is a different English page for the "Clothes moth" which I would like to link to the Spanish page "Polilla." It says The link eswiki:Polilla is already used by Item Q56315380. Slava570 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Slava570: The enwiki page "Clothes moth" is on item clothes moth (Q25036256) here, which is a subclass of moths (Q56315380) where the eswiki page "Polilla" goes. It seems the Spanish term has a more general meaning. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thank you! So I think moths (Q56315380) should link to the Spanish page for "Heterocera." And "polilla" should actually be a subclass of "Heterocera." Does that make sense? Slava570 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The solution isn't merging. When it comes to animals, there are taxon's like species (Tineola bisselliella Q1945889), taxons like the suborder (Heterocera Q1725788) and there common names that group animals together that aren't a formal taxon that biologists describe like moths (Q56315380) or clothes moth (Q25036256). All four are different Wikidata items with different meanings that are not supposed to be merged.
You can create sitelinks to redirects if you want the interwiki links. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
ok, thanks, I'll see if I can figure this out... Slava570 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yamadazyma mexicanum (Q10723334)

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The scientific names of living things have to follow the gender rules of Latin, particularly matching the gender of the species part of the name to the genus part. In the case of Yamadazyma mexicanum (Q10723334), the male species doesn't match the female genus, so the name is wrong and should be changed to Yamadazyma mexicana. Google says: "While some database entries or earlier references might have used the variant spelling "Yamadazyma mexicanum", taxonomic authorities and MycoBank recognize Yamadazyma mexicana as the valid binomial name, following the rules of botanical nomenclature where the species epithet usually matches the gender of the genus name." I would like to know whether I should change the name in the existing Q10723334 or create a new Q for the correct spelling. Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Eastmain It might be good to ask this question in Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy where users with specialized knowledge collaborate. Ainali (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are a number of Greek words and roots ending in -ma that are neutral gendered, not female. -zyma is one of those. Circeus (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Problem with Interslavic language

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone! I don't know where to post about a problem I've noticed, so I'll leave it here. So, I noticed that Wikidata has the languages ​​меджусловјанскы and medžuslovjansky, but I don't know how to insert them into my babel. Can anyone solve this problem? Or will I have to wait until Interslavic Wikipedia comes out? I just wanted to translate the properties into my languages. Thanks in advance. RiiffTower (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are isv-cyrl and isv-latn (I found them by looking at what the options are for "isv" in a monolingual text property such as official name (P1448), but it looks like they are also available in babel, and in labels and descriptions). Peter James (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for your answer! RiiffTower (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

help with cultural artifact

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I've done my best describing Hinematioro pou (Q138259858) but it's the first time I've done something like this and it doesn't seem right. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't like ethnic group as a qualifier. I would have made it an instance of pou, but pou isn't available. Presuming that pou is a type of thing, I'd make pou first, and make your item an instance of pou. Country = New Zealand. Do you have dates, a reference etc? Secretlondon (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
We have a lot of pictures from the Auckland museum on commons but nothing coming up with that name, sadly. https://www.aucklandmuseum.com/collection/object/612664. If that's the same item then en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Auckland_Museum may be able to help. Secretlondon (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Stuartyeates if it is pouwhenua (Q1516228) or pouwhenua (Q134587689) then make it an instance of (P31) of that. Click on What Links Here for both of these and see how any incoming links are modelled, ie https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Q1516228 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Q134587689 Piecesofuk (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've merged pouwhenua (Q1516228) and pouwhenua (Q134587689) since they're the same thing and pouwhenua (Q134587689) had no references anyway. This is a different object to https://www.aucklandmuseum.com/collection/object/612664, to this object is currently in Germany awaiting repatriation. Both are carved depiections of the same ancester, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've had another crack at improving this, finding more sources and linking better (I hope) to the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I've fixed the material bit. It didn't like the taxon as the material, but I replaced with the common name of the material Secretlondon (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have a further question about this. It current has a art repatriation (Q873642) without a date. How do I articulate that this is an on-going, multi-year event? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Was Q42 being Douglas Adams on purpose?

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Or was that just a coincidence? VidanaliK (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

'There are no coincidences' Qui-Gon Jinn (Q51736). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
See Wikidata:Humor. Ainali (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's no place like 127.0.0.1. :-) Infrastruktur (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

In Praise of Shadows

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 hours ago5 comments2 people in discussion

In Praise of Shadows (Q1368382) is an essay by w:Jun'ichirō Tanizaki first published in 1933. Several English translations have been published over the years (first in 1977, with a paperback reprint 2001; more recently in 2017; and there is an upcoming new translation slated for publication in May of this year). How best should we distinguish between the different publications/translations and the original? Should I make individual items for each book (per each unique ISBN), or is there a preferred method? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You make one item for the root item, and then make items for each edition or translation. See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Books for more details. Vicarage (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks. As far as I can tell, there are four different books publications and at least three different translations in English (in addition to the original Japanese version), each with a different ISBN. As it is, it seems like we're picking up some data about these various translations in the existing item for the original text. Once I've made the new items, I may need some guidance on how to undo that. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
PS: I've amended the comment above and should add that there are also translations in Italian, French, German, Spanish, and other languages. Presumably, these too should have individual items here? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The first of these new items has been initiated (see In Praise of Shadows (Q138307167)). Please let me know if there is anything way off base or that should be done differently. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kickstarter project, Indiegogo Project and GoFundMe campaign

[edit]

Are we supposed to use donations (P8093) as qualifier instead of total revenue (P2139)? I was told to use P2139 long time ago but now I am starting to get my doubts

Meanings of tenor

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello all,

there is one entry for tenor: tenor (Q27914), for the male voice. But tenor also refers to a musical range (also called tille in Baroque music), e.g. tenor banjo, tenor bassoon, tenor bell, tenor C (C5), tenor cor, tenor cornett, tenor drum, tenor guitar, tenor horn, tenor oboe, tenor recorder, tenor saxophone, tenor trombone, tenor tuba, tenor ukulele, tenor viol, tenor violin.

Therefoe, I created tenor (Q138307163). But I don't know how to set it for the instruments. E.g. for tenor saxophone (Q1414932), I tried Instance of > + add value, but it does not work.

What did I do wrong?

I also woud like to link it to range (Q1042979), but neither subclass of nor instance of work.

Cdang (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Identifier for Board Games in the Ludii database

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ludii Ludii (Q136749617) is the name of a general game system, but also of a database of games, particularly traditional and ancient games. See the game library under https://ludii.games/index.php The database entries contain short descriptions, rules, references, geo-tagged evidence... Example: https://ludii.games/details.php?keyword=XII%20Scripta

Would having a property linking Wikidata items with their Ludii identifier be good? To me it looks like a valuable addition, complementing the properties available so far (e.g. BoardGameGeek ID). What would be necessary to get such a Ludii ID property off the ground? I know that Ludii developers are working on changes to their database; adding something like URIs might be a possibility in case that's a prerequisite. --Jonas kork (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that after Ludii settle on their new format you create a new property proposal, (pick one mentioned in the weekly messages here to get an idea of the current format and copy it), and then advertise it in the relevant Wikidata projects. ID's generally need URLs, either APIs or pages. Vicarage (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2463726806"