Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat

Edit links
Add topic
Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
From Wikidata
Latest comment: 5 hours ago by IntensionalLogician in topic publications
Edit
Image
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Need of a process to become a mentor

[edit]
Latest comment: 21 hours ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Since just recently, we have the possibility to use the Mentorship features like many Wikipedias already have. However, currently we have self enrollment disabled. So either we need to turn that on, or we should add how to request to become a mentor on Wikidata:Requests for permissions. I suggest that we do the first one, and the current limit of a 365 days old account with at least 500 edits seems like a reasonable number to start with. Ainali (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

For comparison Event Organizers have no formal requirements for experience on Wikidata whatsoever. One is bound to have instances of the blind leading the deaf, to use a metaphor.
I see no use-case for having people request mentor rights. Since edits are easy to farm on Wikidata, the emphasis should be on account age, not edit count. It's in the spirit of Wikipedia to give users a lot of freedom even if that leaves room for messing up, so if an enthusiastic user with a half year old account wants to have a go at this, that seems ok to me.
One of the worries on Wikidata is new users making edits by the thousands, and not reading through all of the documentation or asking others for advice. Establishing a feedback cycle early can only be a good thing. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you really want. Are you totally against users getting mentor rights, or against it being manually handed out? Ainali (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The latter. People can self-enroll. I just find it strange to expect that mentors should have Wikidata experience when there currently is no such expectations of Event Organizers. Infrastruktur (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I agree. So would you rather go with even longer time than 365 days? Ainali (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nah. They don't need to be experts. I would be ok with as low as 6 months of experience for either role. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great! Then all we need is an admin checking the Editors who meet all eligibility criteria are automatically eligible to enroll as mentors on Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship. Ainali (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm supportive of this. We can always change the configuration later if need be, but let's give it a try with the default settings. Yirba (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright, discussion has been open for 5 days, so I guess it's time. Mentorship has been enabled. Settings are still TBD. Currently configured to allow let accounts over 365 days old with 500 edits to self-assign themselves the mentor role, so give it a try. Mentees are currently automatically removed from mentorship after reaching either 500 edits or having an account registered for 30 days. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for doing that. I won't be participating myself, but I'd be curious to hear what mentors and mentees on Wikidata make of this feature. Yirba (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thoughts on transcluding Special:ManageMentors as described at [1] so it can be added to Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list (Q14339834)? IntensionalLogician (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a good idea. Ainali (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Moderator, policies, and personal essays?

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago19 comments8 people in discussion

In a recent post on my talk page a moderator called into question eight entries I made. Seven of the eight I was willing to defend, while the eight I conceded could be deleted. After responding to the points to the best of my ability a subsequent response was made by the moderator which linked to their own essay. More interestingly, the actual policy on Wikidata:MAINTAIN links to their essay from March of 2026.

Aside from being honestly confused at the moderator's input which I plan to handle with them directly, I think moderators should,

  1. Be restricted to citing official rules that they're enforcing.
  2. That official rules in the Wikidata: namespace (Wikidata:MAINTAIN) should not point to personal essays.

Otherwise we lose the ability to collectively edit, iterate on, and dispute elements of the policy. Moderators execute policy. Their role should not be to unilaterally create the policy they're enforcing. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

See WP:NOTBURO. However, I do understand that seeing an admin link their own essay may feel arbitrary. To this end, I would support making @Bovlb:'s essay the official text of Wikidata:MAINTAIN in mainspace project space, rather than a redirect, to avoid future confusion. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Image Support moving the essay; I think we usually have an RFC regarding making something policy? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My maintainability essay seeks to explain why, in my opinion, our notability policy is helpful for the project, especially the second criterion about identifiers and sources. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not policy, but merely my discussion of some aspects of current notability policy. Every editor is free to compose and share their insights in this way. I don’t think my essay would be suitable as policy. It's explanatory commentary, not a statement of rules.
This user's items are at risk because they lack the indications of notability required by policy. I have been attempting to help this user to rescue these items. Bovlb (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the basic gist of this request. Especially considering that the same administrator have written talk page message templates that makes it look like that our policies are stricter than what they truly are. Even taking consideration to suggested future changes the wording is simply false. Rather than pretending that our policies are strict and harassing users to follow personal ambitions, it would be better for the project if we improved our policies to be aligned to what we all agree upon and then only try to enforce those policies. Ainali (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If the community was capable of producing well written and well thought out policies, they would have done so by now. For example the wording of section two of the notability policy is actively misleading and counter to current practice. It so happens that there is an RFC open to improve this policy, but our other policy documents shows signs of neglect. Having to refer to practices on english Wikipedia even for simple things, is kind of embarrassing for a site the size of Wikidata. We should be glad we have administrators who are politely and selflessly willing to offer their guidance to users. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, it is one thing if they offer guidance to our policies and another if they invent their own rules and give guidance according to them. The last thing is certainly not worthy of adminship. Ainali (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ainali: I don’t feel it’s respectful to make serious allegations without substantiation. If there are concerns about administrators enforcing non-existent policies or harassing editors, they should be laid out concretely so they can be discussed openly. Collaboration depends on transparency and communication. Bovlb (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I have tried to make this point to you for about a month using citations and links, I am not sure what else I can say to make you understand. Ainali (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have seen several places where you have expressed the view that N2 provides two alternative criteria that stand on their own. I have not responded further because I felt I had already explained my interpretation to the best of my ability, and I saw no point in repeating myself.
However, that is not what I was asking about.
You made a number of specific allegations, and I asked you to substantiate them. Do you have any concrete examples of an administrator enforcing non-existent policies? Do you have any examples of an administrator harassing an editor? Can you explain what you mean by "personal ambitions" in this context?
If there are concrete examples, they should be laid out so they can be discussed. If not, I don't think those allegations ought to be casually referenced as though they were established fact. Bovlb (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
1. No, I never claimed that, but there was an implicit "try". I haven't seen it actually enforced, but I consider referring to non existent policies on a user talk page with a subtext of that not bending to the request may lead to actions is such a try, like you did on my talk page. 2. And yes, I think such edits qualifies as harassing as they don't have support in policy. 3. I mean that you have higher standards than our written policy. Those are fine ambitions, but the energy should go into improving policy first and then get to act on them. That way, we can make sure every item gets treated equally. Ainali (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The link leads to a standard notability warning. At the time the warning was given, the listed items had no indication of notability whatsoever: in particular, neither identifiers nor sources. They have since been improved to include at least one of those, and none of the items have been deleted.
While I stand by my interpretation of N2, arguing at length about whether it is to be read as "and" or "or" seems beside the point when, at the time of the warning, the items satisfied neither interpretation.
The purpose of this warning is to help the editor rescue the items by improving them before any administrative action is considered. In this case, that is exactly what happened. Bovlb (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The "and" or "or" is irrelevant under the current policy as N2 only states that an item "can be described using serious and publicly available references" (my emphasis). It doesn't say that the item "has to be ...". Ainali (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
"a moderator called into question"—Wikidata has no role called "moderator"; anyone may comment or request a change.
Bovlb is an administrator, but they don't act as such in the discussion in question.
The page to which they linked carries the standard heading notice (emboldening in original):
This is an essay.
It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikidata contributors, but may not have wide support. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Anyone may refer to such an essay, whether they wrote it or not. Bolvb makes no claim that the essay is a policy.
They do, though, refer to our notability policy, to which all items must demonstrably adhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
To clarify my position earlier, where I suggested the essay be moved into mainspace project space, I was NOT suggesting the essay become policy (as it is not written as policy). I was just suggesting it be moved to mainspace project space as many other essays are on enwiki (see [2] [3] and hundreds of others [4]). -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The essay isn't really a policy, but it aligns with the notability policy. It seems to explain things quite well and is neutral and unopinionated. So I think it would be good to move it into the project namespace, but only if @Bovlb is okay with that. Yirba (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I disagree about the neutrality. The essay is peppered with opinions, but that may not be a bad thing since the opinions in general are in favor of Wikidata. What is more troublesome is that it also makes claims that are easy to refute. If we clean those up, moving it to the project namespace may make sense. Ainali (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it aligns with notability. And, I don't think user Infrastruktur does either, as he claims "section two of the notability policy is actively misleading and counter to current practice." I accept any clarification if I read his statements wrong. If the notability policy is misleading (ie., leading readers to an undesirable conclusion), and your guidance directs them to a conclusion that the notability policy would not otherwise direct them too, then from my perspective -- respectfully -- they're not in alignment. We should just be open about that. That's not to say which one is better or worse (though obviously my preference is known), but I don't see how we can argue they're aligned.
> If there are concerns about administrators enforcing non-existent policies or harassing editors, they should be laid out concretely so they can be discussed openly.
While, we're clearing the air, that is exactly what I've done on my talk page. It's not personal though. I just feel you've been empowered to write policy that's in flagrant disagreement (as mentioned above) with official policy and that your title and the redirect from official policy to your essay puts me at a tremendous disadvantage to engage. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do, I want to argue (most) of those entries identified are notable by both rules 2 and 3 combined. You want to argue it's not for reasons that I simply don't understand specified in something I didn't particularly want to read, but did. And after having read it, I don't get the request being made.
I also want to address WP:BURO in support: I'm not challenging this. In my personal use case: I have schools and parks that are dedicated to people. Wikidata represents this with an entity and a relationship. For me to accomplish this, notability (by way of structural neccessity) has to flow from park to the person the park is dedicated to. The rules incline me to believe that happens naturally, as both the park and the dedicatee are conceptually different and structural necessary for the relationship. That's not the view of the administrator for reasons they believe are stated in their essay. While, I read that essay, I didn't get that from my read of it, and I don't particularly want to litigate their own personal essay which is being used as a foundation to their argument to contribute to Wikidata. I just want people to find a park or school in Houston, and to know who they're named after and what those people did, or are famous for. I'm only bringing this up to say, this isn't an attempt to create bureaucracy; it's an attempt to disarm it so I can get back to parks and schools. EvanCarroll (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
When I say that the essay is aligned with the policy, I mean that the essay uses the policy as its basis. This is evident in the Notability section where it specifically references the "three notability criteria", and considers each one in turn. That's not to say there is 100% alignment, but by and large you can put the policy and the essay side-by-side and see that they're roughly talking about the same things. And yes, it's undeniable that there are issues with the current notability policy. That's why there's an RfC to improve it. Unfortunately, until the policy has been formally revised, there's not much the essay can do other than clarify the current policy to reflect the current consensus. If you're looking for a completely clear and ratified policy, it simply doesn't exist right now, and it may well never exist. We can only try to improve the policy, and build consensus on how to interpret it. The essay at least explains the rationale behind the policy. Yirba (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Permanent duplicated items

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I came across VisualEditor (Q14064660) and VisualEditor (Q21679100), both items for the VisualEditor but just with slightly different info/descriptions. I assumed at first that one was just an accidental duplicate I could merge, but then I saw that they used permanent duplicated item (P2959). Apparently they are deliberately kept separate, I think (?) because there are two MediaWiki pages, mw:VisualEditor and mw:Extension:VisualEditor.

I think this is an awful situation, since it's hard enough for us to maintain 100,000,000 entities without also having to worry about making synced updates to duplicates. The idea of one entity per concept seems very core to our model. Is there nothing we can do to avoid having permanent duplicated items? Sdkb talk 06:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sdkb: I think they are separate because MediaWiki.org has a mainspace page and an extension page. But the mainspace page, and VisualEditor (Q14064660) should be an instance of software project (Q63437139) (or just project (Q170584) maybe). Then the extension page could be a MediaWiki extension (Q6805426). Then they wouldn't be permanent duplicated item (P2959)s because one would be the software and one the project to build that software. To your main point though, I agree, it always feels weird that we have that property. Sam Wilson 07:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've made VisualEditor (Q21679100) into the project, and VisualEditor (Q14064660) the extension. Hope that's correct. Sam Wilson 09:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Most statement still needed moving to the software item. I've done so.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|?]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs).
I'm skeptical that the distinction between the software project and the extension is significant enough to warrant separate items (is that how we document any other piece of software?) but I guess if we must we must.
Regarding the larger point, is there any totally unavoidable use of permanent duplicated item (P2959)? I feel like having it around encourages bad habits, so if possible it would be good to have it deleted. Sdkb talk 14:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

People from American Samoa

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is the correct description "American Samoan politician" or just "American politician"? I dont know how we are supposed to handle ethnonyms and unincorporated territories of the United States Trade (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

"American Samoan politician" seems more correct to me. Perhaps American Samoan politicians can also be considered to be American, but for the avoidance of doubt, it seems better to be more specific. Yirba (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, the categories on en: use "American Samoan". Circeus (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the wording on P449

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I recently made corrections to the original broadcaster (P449) property for Japanese TV programs. I aligned the values with practices seen in other similar Q-items, distinguishing between key stations and production companies where appropriate.These changes were made after careful prior review of the items. However, another editor criticized my edits as "degrading the data."Should Wikidata follow the conventions used in different language versions of Wikipedia for such cases? For Japanese television programs, there is often a distinction between the key broadcasting station and the production studio (e.g., Kansai TV productions aired on Fuji TV network). I believe reflecting this reality improves accuracy rather than harms it. ならちゃん (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you're going to expand this discussion here, please include a link to the Japanese Project Chat(Wikidata:井戸端#日本の放送局の入力値の均質化について) and post a notification in the Japanese Project Chat.
The edit this user actually made was change the item for the broadcaster(original broadcaster (P449)) from Fuji Network(Fuji Television (Q744800)) to Fuji TV(Fuji Network System (Q844067)) , which differs from what is state in his/her post. In short, it's a change could be interpreted to mean that the program was broadcast only in the Kanto region, rather than nationwide in Japan.
In Japanese television broadcasting operates based on the concepts of central "key stations"(flagship (Q5456998)) and regional stations. TV Programs are categorized into those broadcast only on key station, those broadcast nationwide, and those produced solely by local stations. Consequently, there are various types of programs: those broadcast solely by key stations; those aired only by local stations; those broadcast nationwide aired via station networks(produced by either key stations or regional stations); and those aired only a subset of stations with in a network rather than the entire network.
This user is attempting to make changes to change to standardize the "key station" values for Japanese TV Program items, and we currently discussion the validity of this approach in the Japanese-language Project Chat((Wikidata:井戸端#日本の放送局の入力値の均質化について). Mariobanana (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I had a look at the previous discussions but the only example of an edit I could find was this one. But I'm not familiar with that programme and don't know what the correct value for production company should be. There's no reference provided, so it's not possible to verify. It would be nice if a reference could be provided for such claims. As a general principle, though, it's important to distinguish between the production company and the original broadcaster (which may be the same as the production company or it may differ; it may be a national broadcaster or a local one; it could even be a subsidiary of another broadcaster). My suggestion would be that, where there is doubt, it's important that a suitable reference is included that specifically describes the production company or broadcaster. Yirba (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
thank you.
For television programs, production costs are indicated in the closing credits. In the case of the BBC or NHK, the situation is complex due to the way facilities are deployed and the organizational structures involved—spanning both nationwide and local programming.The NHK Yearbook website lists the production companies and departments involved.
News programs also consist of both national and local segments.
Fuji TV's Fuji Network is involved in the production of only a limited number of special programs.(ja:フジネットワーク#主な共同ネット番組・企画) ならちゃん (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Courtesy link: original broadcaster (P449) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Database assigning nonsensical names

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

What are you supposed to do if you are making an item about a person but the database they are listed in have given them a nonsensical name? Do we still keep the name as the label?--Trade (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Eg a research database listing someone as being named "Error 74" --Trade (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd expect the nonsense to be fixed sometime, so its reasonable to antcipate that. If our guess is wrong it can be revised later. If the error is never fixed, we are still better off. Vicarage (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Problem is that the nonsense is the only name i have Trade (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Didn't spot the bit where you said you were making the item. In that case you need to give up! Vicarage (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why would you make an item about the person in that case? What is the purpose? ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not great, but I think it would be justified to using "Error 74" since that's what they're called in the database. Maybe use a "subject named as" qualifier on the external ID statement so it's clear where that weird name came from. Yirba (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
In terms of modelling, I think this is the better approach, as long as the item is otherwise notable or likely notable (which could be implied just from appearing in the database at all). Keeping the item signals that the entity is known to Wikidata; that it wasn't just skipped over when adding items from the external database (thus potentially avoiding duplicate items in the future). Additional info can always be added later once somebody is able to find something more identifiable.
Ultimately it'd be similar to items of an unnamed/anonymous authors, which Wikidata already has. For example: the instances of notname (Q1747829), or items labelled with variations of "Unidentified Person". HelloImSteven (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Problem with editing

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Why do my edits keep getting flagged as "possible bad changes" even though I'm not trying to make bad changes? Please see my filter log for more details. WereWolf370 (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are changing descriptions to start with capital letters. They should start with lower case letters and avoid 'a', 'the', etc so they could fit in gaps in sentences without jarring a reader. Only proper nouns should be capitalised. Vicarage (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I didn't understand until you said that. WereWolf370 (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You will need to undo (revert) your bad changes. Do it from the history links from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WereWolf370 Vicarage (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes I undid the bad changes. WereWolf370 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Change the titel on a film?

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A wikipedia-page was created for a film during production but the title changed from Förbannelsen - en kärlekshistora to Gör hjärtat hårt. How to I change this on top of the page? ~2026-37173-78 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is the Wikidata help desk, the article is on Swedish Wikipedia at sv:Förbannelsen – en kärlekshistoria. You could ask there at sv:Wikipedia:Wikipediafrågor and quote a reliable source for the new title. TSventon (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is it reasonable to have two separate items for this?

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

@Kirilloparma and I are having a disagreement over A Quiet Place. They have reverted several mergers of A Quiet Place (Q126949542) (media franchise) and A Quiet Place (Q111993071) (film franchise). As far as I see it these are not meaningfully different subjects. The external links on each item seem to cover the exact same thing. StarTrekker (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Image Comment: The context -- User talk:Kirilloparma#A Quiet Place 2. --Wolverène (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not familiar enough with A Quiet Place to comment on that specifically, but it's quite common to have a media franchise (e.g. Mario (Q4803535)) that includes a series (Super Mario (Q4802838)) that includes a series (Super Mario Galaxy (Q64671713)) that inspired a work (The Super Mario Galaxy Movie (Q124806421)) that is part of a separate series (Illumination Mario films (Q125153227)) that is still part of the overall media franchise. That is to say, large media franchises can be incredibly complex with multiple levels of hierarchy, so it's useful to have an entity that represents the whole thing (although defining its boundary can be difficult) and then you can have a whole tree of series and sub-series under that. Yirba (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My problem is more that one item seems to be for "film franchise", not "film series". Having a separate items for franchise and series makes sense I think, but not for different versions of franchise.StarTrekker (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My view is that just because film franchise (Q130371093) exists, it doesn't have to be used in modelling. film series (Q24856) and media franchise (Q196600) worked perfectly well; this new item just blurs the lines and creates problems like this one. film franchise (Q130371093) is clearly just a subclass of media franchise. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #738

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Image
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2026-06-29. Missed the previous one? See issue #737.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • TopDevsBot - Task/s: Create new items for software-development, design, and consulting companies from source data: topdevs.ai
    • SonalBot - Task/s: Reference Gardener (archive dead reference links) + Welcome Bot (welcome new users)
  • New request for comments: WM Commons: Policy update for AI content - this RfC will seek opinions on the use and allowance of AI-generated and modified content. This can have downstream impacts on Wikidata.

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • Call for local partners: WikidataCon 2027: Planning is underway for the next hybrid WikidataCon, and Wikimedia Deutschland is seeking a local affiliate to co-organize the on-site event. Expressions of Interest are due by 13 July. A Q&A clinic will be held on 1 July at 15:00 UTC (join here).
  • Growth features are now available at Wikidata. This update enables access to Mentorship, Impact module, the Help Panel, and a simplified Newcomer Homepage (without Suggested Edits).

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • Wikidata integration in the other Wikimedia projects:
    • We are continuing to evaluate the prototype for reducing the number of unnecessary edits from Wikidata that show up in watchlist and recent changes of Wikipedia and co. The approach is to look at the diff of the rendered article before and after the change from Wikidata is made. If there is no difference then the change is probably not relevant for that article. We are collecting a sample to further understand how it performs.
    • To continue to address Wikidata's scaling issues, we are planning the migration of entity usage tables to the X1 cluster.
  • Mobile editing of statements:
    • We implemented more feedback from testing of the new mobile front-end. Specifically we worked on making it clearer when a statements already exist that the editor is trying to add to the Item.
    • Additionally, we made minor improvements to the look and feel of the mobile front-end.
  • REST API:
  • GraphQL:
    • We added support for requesting “best statements” for a given Property (phab:T428138)
    • We are working on adding support for negation in Property value pair filters (phab:T429580)

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

Problem with anti spam filter

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm trying to create an item for CryptoNews.it, an Italian cryptocurrency news outlet indexed on Google News. I'm getting blocked by the spam filter. Can someone help or create the item? Umberto888 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like the spam filter is doing its job. Is that website notable? A brief google search would suggest not... M2Ys4U (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

curious if "national origin" (as applied to a person) should or could be created as a property

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

A person's "national origin" is a protected class under federal law in the US. Intuitively to me, it then seems like national origin would be valid property to have here on wikidata. But to put it into wide use would be no simple undertaking as far as I can tell.

I see it as applicable to individuals. but also, reasonably for groups of people- the item "Mexican Americans" would have "Mexico" as its "national origin" label. For individuals within any such group, I think users would be judge each individual on their own for whether the label fits.


  • I know "place of birth" (property:P19) is already in use in this lane.
  • nationality/ citizenship (property:P27) is a single property already (which is interesting)- already in use.
  • country of origin (Property:P495) exists, but is explicitly intended for non human subjects.
  • national origin (Q106432792) exists as a normal item, but I think we might need a property here!


I am new to this platform aside from a few small gnome edits, but I wanted to throw this out and see what the response is. Let me know of anything I may be missing for this to become a real proposal. Or please let me know if this info is essentially captured somewhere that I'm not aware of. or maybe the properties I mentioned above are good enough? Thanks in advance for your patience. Skakkle (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

From en:National origin the definition encompasses both "place of birth" and also "where that person's ancestors came from". "Nationality" and "citizenship" are clearly distinct from this as they are legal statuses that may change over a lifetime, while national origin would be determined by events at or before the person's birth. Unlike place of birth (P19) it would not be single-valued, as a person may have ancestors from many different nations. The other related property is ethnic group (P172); however for people from multi-ethnic nations that would focus on their particular ethnicity rather than the nation as a whole. So I think this is distinct enough for its own property. Further discussion on a property proposal would likely be helpful here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
P172 fits perfectly here. An item for an American person with Mexican roots could have the property of 'ethnic group' with values 'Mexican Americans' and 'Hispanic and Latino Americans'. --Wolverène (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I acknowledge that national origin is a legally established concept, but I have never seen a reliable source or individual that has affirmatively identified a national origin outside of a lawsuit. I think that if created, a property for national origin will become a dumping ground for guesswork and unsourced statements. Like the many statements of ethnic group (P172), but less sourced. William Graham (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Missing contributions

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there,

I'm a relatively new Wikidata editor (username: LacalleGroup) and I'm trying to understand what happened to a number of my earlier contributions.

My account shows 77 edits, but my public contributions list now displays only a handful of edits and I cannot find the items I created. I believe many of my edits were to newly created items that may have been deleted, merged, or otherwise removed from public view.

I'm not looking to dispute any deletion decisions. Rather, I'd like to understand what happened so I can improve my future contributions and recreate any appropriate items with better sourcing or corrections if necessary.

Could an administrator please let me know: whether most of my missing edits are to deleted items; which items they were; and whether there are deletion discussions or logs that I should review? Is it possible that I created these items while not logged in properly?

For context, I was working on items related to Lacalle Group, Continued, Allied Health Media, AudiologyOnline, and their founders. I also disclosed on my user page that I edit on behalf of my employer and want to follow Wikidata's conflict-of-interest guidance.

Thank you for any assistance or advice. LacalleGroup (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would recommend reading Wikidata:Notability and Wikidata:Self-promotion. William Graham (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not an admin, but looking at Special:Contributions/LacalleGroup and then clicking on user analysis, I can see that you have 8 Live edits and 71 Deleted edits. I can also see that you created 9 pages (7 since deleted) and can click on the 9 to see the names, which shows that you were logged in when you created them. It seems likely that you made around 10 edits to create each deleted item, each field of data entered is a separate edit. As suggested, it is likely that the items were deleted as non-notable. Merger is a different process and edits to a merged item are are not deleted. TSventon (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both for your responses. I have read the linked pages and am attempting to do better. I apologize for posting this question in multiple areas. I am still finding my way around the site. Thank you again for your continued efforts. LacalleGroup (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge?

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I just added a Commons link to the one that looked the best (Q26231084).

  • Kashiwabara (Q6374357) family name 7 statements, 0 sitelinks – 19:55, 5 September 2024
  • Kashiwabara (Q90036670) undifferentiated Japanese kana surname (かしわばら) 6 statements, 1 sitelink – 09:49, 4 May 2023
  • Kashiwabara (Q26231084) Japanese family name (柏原, かしわばら) 10 statements, 0 sitelinks – 18:04, 23 November 2023
  • Kashiwabara (Q27319931) Japanese family name (樫原, かしわばら) 10 statements, 0 sitelinks – 20:14, 23 November 2023

Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

These are different family names because they are written with different sets of characters. E.g. Q6374357 does not even use the hieroglyphs and may be used for subjects whose legal name was always written with the Latin script. 柏原 and 樫原 are surely different surnames for Japanese speakers. --Wolverène (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for asking. Yes, Q26231084 and Q27319931 have different kanjis (ideographic characters), where one mean oak tree and the other means a specific kind of oak, the kanji also reads differently even if the whole surname reads the same. So those two items should definitely not be merged. I would also seem undifferentiated japanese kana surname is treated special so I would guess that Q6374357 and Q90036670 should not be merged either, since conceivably people born abroad might use their romanized surname as-is without it being tied to its origin. Honestly I'm not sure what the practice is there. At least it's clear that disambiguation pages should not be merged with name items. Undifferentiated in this context means the names have the same reading, and the correct spelling is not known. Q90036670 is a good choice to add the Commons sitelink to since we don't know the spelling from the romanization, and it's often a one to many mapping. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is indeed why they should be kept separate. André Yoshiaki Kashiwabara (Q102434429) for example would require the separate Latin script item. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you @Infrastruktur for the advice about the placement of the Commons link. I placed that Commons link according to your suggestion.
Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

publications

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion

up to 2026 Elnoiry72 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain your idea more specifically? --Wolverène (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Possibly trying to promt Wikidata as if it was a LLM chatbot. Samoasambia ✎ 20:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Probably not what you wanted, but here is a SPARQL Query for all instances of publication (Q732577) published up to 2026. If you do want queries like this, you can request them at WD:RAQ. IntensionalLogician (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A Wikidata name public figure type entry fails to ever appear in Google search results or elsewise despite following instructions.

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A Wikidata name public figure type entry fails to ever appear in Google search results or elsewise despite following instructions. ~2026-37522-81 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What instructions are you talking about. --Wolverène (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
What appears in Google search results is up to Google. I understand that Google gives Wikipedia articles a high rank in search results, but I don't think the same is true for Wikidata items. TSventon (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This sounds like an example of people who create a (typically non-notable) item for themselves with the mistaken idea that it will get them a Google Knowledge Panel. William Graham (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. Curious that there exist some sort of 'instructions.' Wondering who tries to spread them and convinces their clients that Wikidata is a nice tool for getting a knowledge graph (at least it does not work if someone's name is still rarely googled). --Wolverène (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Missing contributions for account

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Subject: Missing contributions for user account from March 31, 2026 Text: Hello. I am the creator of this account (registered on March 31, 2026). For the past 3 months, I have been working on creating and structuring entities related to psychology, psychoanalysis, and bioengineering (specifically "Psychoanalysis by Vagan Arzumanian" and "Deimprinting" - Q138843274). Yesterday, I could see my full edit history and the results. Today, my contributions page is completely empty, and global search cannot find the items. However, the Central Auth utility still states: "Found edits from 2 wikis" for my account. Could an administrator please check the server logs or deleted/hidden history for my username to locate where these 2 active wikis or hidden items are stored? I need to find the correct Q-codes or page links for my 3-month research data. Thank you. Vagan Arzumanian (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Vagan Arzumanian I am not an admin, but looking at Special:Contributions/Vagan_Arzumanian and then clicking on user analysis, I can see that you have 1 Live edits and 273 Deleted edits on Wikidata and 1 on ru.wikisource.org. I can also see that you created 4 pages (4 since deleted). You can usually click on the 4 to see the names, but xtools is timing out, it might be worth trying again later. The edit on ru.wikisource.org may have been deleted, but again xtools is timing out. TSventon (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Plaintext
As a follow-up and for your comprehensive review, the complete text of the formal specification and architecture has already been published internationally. For a detailed analysis of the conceptual framework, please refer to the official documentation:
"Formalizing the Human Bioprocessor Architecture and Deimprinting" available at Medium: https://medium.com/@vagana/technical-regulation-tr-ebp-01-formalizing-the-human-bioprocessor-architecture-and-deimprinting-560a1dcf8e83
This technical regulation completely outlines the systems analysis logic behind the data structure I am formalizing on Wikidata. Vagan Arzumanian (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Those items were nominated for deletion, see archived request for deletion at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2026/07/01#Bulk deletion request regarding Vagan Arzumanian. I was the user that nominated those items for deletion. I reviewed the items and didn't find the self published works and neologisms to meet Wikidata:Notability policy. An admin reviewed my request and deleted the items. William Graham (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Plaintext
I am a practicing physician, and what I placed on Wikidata is the result of years of clinical work and research in this field. Science inherently requires neologisms; everything new demands new names, as they cannot be explained using outdated vocabularies.
There is a fundamental conceptual problem that mainstream psychology prefers to ignore: the basis of classical psychology and psychoanalysis was developed over 100 years ago by humanitarians in complete isolation from neurophysiology, evolutionary biology, and—objectively—biocybernetics. They simply did not exist at the dawn of Freudianism. As a result, 20th-century humanitarians created a speculative, isolated model where the subconscious is viewed merely as a "basement" for repressed personal traumatic experiences. The classical approach forces a person to work for years with the consequence—the reaction (a negative emotional state)—trying to redraw or "cure" it on the screen of consciousness. This is equivalent to wiping a computer monitor with a cloth, hoping to change the underlying system algorithm that faithfully, time after time, produces the same error output.
"Deimprinting" shifts the paradigm entirely, moving the process into the domain of strict logic and systems analysis. The core of this concept is directly opposite to the classical one: the brain is viewed as a bioprocessor. The subconscious is not a warehouse of personal grudges, but ready-made sensual algorithms of attitude borrowed from the environment. Consider the evolutionary rationality of bio-software: Nature is a strict, pragmatic, and economical engineer. A living system that expended colossal energy resources (ATP) on independent calculation, analysis, and evaluation of every new life situation from scratch would instantly lose the evolutionary race. Instead, nature developed an ultra-economical, fast, and effective mechanism of adaptation to the environment by transmitting and receiving ready-made bio-algorithms (imprints). From birth to the end of life, our bioprocessor functions in an open, unshielded mode, downloading executable attitude files from the environment in the background via field interaction. This ensures rapid adaptation to the environment.
The problem arises when the borrowed adaptation scripts become inadequate to a different reality, or conflict with each other. Deimprinting is aimed not at a cosmetic "softening" of symptoms, but at a complete, standard uninstallation of these borrowed, inadequate programs from the bioprocessor.
"Deimprinting" is a neologism strictly grounded in biology. Imprinting is the capture/recording. Deimprinting is the uninstallation of this record. (At one time, both "imprinting" and later "reimprinting" were also neologisms). It represents a new concept of psychotherapeutic practice, differing from others through a multidisciplinary approach where the brain is treated as a bioprocessor operating on binary code. The sensory attitude algorithms are written into the bioprocessor as the least energy-consuming and most effective evolutionary mechanism of adaptation. The transmission of these algorithms occurs in background mode via field interaction, causing autoresonance in the nervous system, which fixes the parameters of this external biofield. The technique targets not the symptoms, but the clean uninstallation of the inadequate programs causing the negative emotional state.
To provide a clear example from practical application:
A 14-year-old teenager of Slavic appearance was born and raised in Armenia. He is completely "one of their own" in this environment. Suddenly, his state changes: he begins to feel ashamed of his appearance, self-doubt emerges, and problems arise in communicating with the kids from the yard. We conduct a session. He discovers that he borrowed (imprinted) this feeling from a Russian classmate who had recently moved to Armenia. For the classmate, this feeling is adaptive and adequate to his situation; for the teenager raised in Armenia, it is completely maladaptive. After the processing and uninstallation of this borrowed program, the teenager immediately returns to his baseline state and runs out to play football with his friends.
I hope I have provided the necessary clarity, and I kindly request the administrators to assist in restoring these structured data blocks or moving them to my personal sandbox (User:Vagan_Arzumanian/Sandbox), so that I can properly align these definitions alongside technical specifications without violating main namespace policies.
P.S. Regarding "self-published works" claims: I am an established researcher in cellular physiology. My peer-reviewed work on cellular signaling mechanisms is indexed in PubMed: "Mechanisms of nitric oxide synthesis and action in cells" (Medicina (Kaunas), 2003, PMID: 12832766), co-authored with Prof. Edgaras Stankevicius and Prof. Egidijus Kevelaitis. My current work in biocybernetic psychological models is a direct, multidisciplinary continuation of my long-term research in cellular and evolutionary biology. To further address the "notability" and "self-published" assumptions, please check the official international indexing and metrics of my research. My peer-reviewed work on cellular signaling mechanisms is fully indexed in the world's core scientific databases: - Title: "Mechanisms of nitric oxide synthesis and action in cells" - Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) — PMID: 12832766 - Web of Science: Indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) by Clarivate Analytics. - Scopus (Elsevier): Continuously indexed, placing the publication in the Q2 Quartile (General Medicine). - Journal Impact Factor: Stable at 2.4 – 2.6. As an established researcher whose peer-reviewed physiological work is recognized by Scopus (Q2) and Web of Science, my transition into biocybernetic psychological models is a rigorous, interdisciplinary expansion of evolutionary and cellular biology. Denying the data structure a place even in the User Sandbox namespace contradicts the principles of documenting modern scientific development. Given this context, I request the administrators to assist in restoring my 273 edits or moving them to my personal sandbox (User:Vagan_Arzumanian/Sandbox), so that I can properly align these definitions alongside technical specifications without violating main namespace policies. Vagan Arzumanian (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It would be advisable to write concise comments and to avoid usings LLMs since no one wants to read huge walls of text. Moving Wikidata items to a user sandbox is technically impossible so we won't be able to fulfill that request. I would also suggest to read the notability policy and the guide to requests for undeletion. Only one of the four deleted items had any references, and it was a Medium blog post which isn't considered a serious reference under the notability policy. CC Yamato Shiya. Samoasambia ✎ 20:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
A fundamentally new scientific concept cannot be backed by existing references, as there is literally nothing to reference yet. The comprehensive text was provided precisely to demonstrate this paradigm shift and novelty to the administrators. If archiving within Wikidata is technically restricted, I will secure and publish this architecture independently. Thank you for the clarification. Vagan Arzumanian (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I am the deleting admin. As Samoasambia said, your items did not backed up by any independently peer reviewed public accessible source. Based on what you write the items is still an unpublished original research. A general understanding of Wikimedia projects viewed that it is a tertiary information source that should not contain original research. Your findings needs to be published in accredited peer reviewed journal (for scientific endeavors) then it could be cited in Wikidata or other Wikimedia projects. Personal sandbox items also are not supported in Wikidata, to the best of my knowledge. In light of those, I Image Declined undeletion request. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 05:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Dear Yamato Shiya,
Thank you for your exhaustive reply.
When working with AI, I frequently encounter a similar phenomenon: the statistical weight of mainstream publications almost always causes AI systems to overlook anything genuinely new.
Attempting to shift a century-old mainstream paradigm, like Freud's classical psychoanalysis, to a radically opposite biocybernetic model through standard journal publications hits the exact same bureaucratic wall. I simply have no one to cite, as this is a fundamental paradigm shift.
This is by no means a reproach. One cannot solve a problem within the same framework in which the problem itself was created.
Sincerely, Vagan Arzumanian Vagan Arzumanian (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Xenarthra (Q173612) parent taxon question

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, should Xenarthra (Q173612)'s parent taxon include Atlantogenata (Q2718670) in addition to Placentalia?

Currently Xenarthra only lists Placentalia as parent taxon. Afrotheria (Q27399) lists Placentalia and Atlantogenata as parent taxon.

Would appreciate someone with edit rights adding parent taxon: Atlantogenata (Q2718670) to Xenarthra (Q173612). Thanks!

Paleoarbos dev (talk) Paleoarbos dev (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does your tool read from [wbc_entity_usage] table?

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(If your third-party tool does not read data from [wbc_entity_usage] via Wiki Replicas or SQL, please ignore this post)

Hello everyone, planning is underway to move the Wikibase [wbc_entity_usage] tables for all wikis to a different database cluster: “x1 extension cluster” to improve database space usage (phab:T424133), potentially freeing up hundreds of GBs.
We expect that few, if any, third-party tools rely directly on this table — but before making any breaking changes, we want to confirm that. If your tool uses this table, hearing from you will help us understand how many tools are affected and what that usage looks like, so we can plan the migration accordingly.

[wbc_entity_usage] tracks which Wikidata entities are used on a given Wiki’s pages, and also powers Wikidata-triggered Recent Changes and Watchlist injections to client Wikis.


If you operate a tool that reads from the [wbc_entity_usage] table:

  • via Wiki Replicas / direct SQL
  • including via JOIN queries to other MediaWiki tables (e.g. "page", "revision")


Then please reply to this post or comment on (phab:T430289) — even a simple “yes, I am affected” is helpful! If you’re able to share more, it helps us even further:

  • The Tool name and location (e.g. Toolforge, repo link)
  • If your query JOIN’s [wbc_entity_usage] with other tables, please tell us which
  • How often the queries run [wbc_entity_usage], (e.g. real-time, daily, weekly, manually).


Please be aware: Queries (including JOINs) on the [wbc_entity_usage] will no longer work after the migration is completed, so they will need to be adjusted. However, old and new tables will be kept ‘in-sync’ during the transition period so operating queries should continue to function until the cutoff data / the old tables are turned off. (phab:T424440)

If you have questions, please reply. If you want to report an issue, please comment at (phab:T430289)
Thank you, - - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Loves Yoruba Heritage Photography Contest

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear colleagues, the Wiki Loves Yoruba Heritage photography contest will start on August 1, 2026. We invite everyone to help document and celebrate the rich heritage of the Yoruba people by contributing photographs of our culture, traditions, historical sites, festivals, architecture, arts, and other aspects of Yoruba heritage. To reach more people outside the Wikimedia community, we have proposed a CentralNotice banner to promote the contest and encourage wider participation. Thank you. Agbalagba (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deleting entities

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What is the process to delete entities? I'm not allowed. Isaac Del Toro (Q138661489) is an almost empty entry I came across looking for Mexican cyclist Isaac del Toro already covered under Isaac Del Toro (Q113013063). Nothing links to Q138661489. Is there a request page for deletion?--Harmonica (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See this page, and kindly read carefully. Thanks. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 15:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I found it was the same Wikipedia article, which had been moved without updating the links and was then moved back, so I merged the items (see Help:Merge). Peter James (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2514001589"