Help
Book creator ( disable )
Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
A place to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.

Please use {{Q}} or {{P}} the first time you mention an item or property, respectively.
Other places to find help

Start a new discussion
Edit
On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2022/08.

Wikidata as repository of study results?[edit]

Hello! Wikidata has an extensive coverage of scientific publications, and I am wondering if it may be an interesting idea to also develop a framework for adding the study results in a structured manner? Say I perform a meta-analysis, charting the results (e.g., regression coefficients or risk estimates or concentrations) from ten studies. To make my data available for others, I add the results in a structured manner to Wikidata, including meta-data such as study group charactertics and methods and time point (if repeated design). If someone later wants to repeat my meta-analysis, or just want to compare results related to a specific subject, they can now query Wikidata and get the data directly. Would this be an interesting idea to explore in Wikidata, or would it be better to make a separate Wikibase? Ajarmund (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe Wikidata is an appropriate venue for publishing original research. I encourage you to submit the results of your meta-analysis for publication in an appropriate scientific journal. When it gets published, an item about the article can be added to Wikidata, and any statements describing the results of the research can be added to the appropriate items as well, with reference to the article item. Possibly even the details of the study as well, although I'm not sure whether that would be notable. Silver hr (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply; just to clarify: the idea would be to add the results of existing studies already published (and already being Wikidata items). For example, to add the actually measured cytokine levels that are reported in Male fetal sex is associated with low maternal plasma anti-inflammatory cytokine profile in the first trimester of healthy pregnancies (Q99590222) as statements with qualifiers. Ajarmund (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just happened to be online :). I suppose in the case of research studies that produced articles describing them, the studies themselves would be notable under criterion 2 of Wikidata:Notability. And it seems we already have such items, e.g. 18F-PM-PBB3 PET Study in Tauopathy Including Alzheimer's Disease, Other Dementias and Normal Controls (Q61902219). So I see no reason that items that are instance of (P31) clinical trial (Q30612) or a related class couldn't have statements describing them in detail.
There is the problem of reliability, though. Wikidata is a wiki that anyone can edit, which implies that any statement it contains at any point in time can be incorrect. So if your goal is to have a repository of reliable study data that scientists can use, I don't think that goal can achieved through Wikidata. Silver hr (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally, listing study results in the items of the relevant scientific papers is a good idea if they can be listed in a structured way where multiple people are likely noting them in the same structure.
It's worth thinking about whether study results should belong to the item of the clinical trial or the item of the academic paper. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 07:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to me a very poor idea indeed, for at least a number of reasons: WD is not designed for tabular data, and I'd presume 'study results' would tend to be exactly that. 'Study results' shorn of their context & qualifiers, seems plain wrong - the presentation of a partial picture. The diversity of forms of 'study results' would also seem to be an enormous ontological challenge; really, in my experience, no two papers have the same sort of content and I cannot imagine how data would be collected in WD in a way which made any real sense. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing out important issues. I agree with you that study results need context, such as in the form of qualifiers. I would say that wikidata offers a unique platform to do exactly this as concepts can be referenced quite precisely across entries. I am not exactly sure what you mean by tabular as I associate it with data presentation rather than the data itself (e.g., long vs wide table formats); columns in a table are generally translatable to qualifiers? Another thought is that study results are already prevalent in wikidata - they are just associated with specific items and having the study source as reference. For example, the reference range of serum potassium level (Q658883) is kind of a study result which may have benefitted from more context/metadata (method, info about study population; human, adults, number of participants, sex ratio, ...). The question, then, is how this information is best organized; as part of the item of the source or as separate and more specific items? How can context best be preserved? How can the results be queried in a useful way? How can they be organized so that contributions can be made efficiently? -- Ajarmund (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ajarmund How about you create an example item of how you expect this to be modeled? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea! Here is an example https://test.wikidata.org/wiki/Q225956 -- Ajarmund (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't say I'm in favor of conflating research studies and articles that describe them in the same item. We should generally err in the direction of more granularity. Also, I'm not enthused about having 3 maternal age properties; having the study populations as instances would enable the use of mean, Q1, and Q3 as qualifiers for maternal age (BTW, why maternal age and not just age?). Finally, the properties study population, reference group and outcome should have the item type. Other than that, I suppose I don't see a reason why this couldn't be in Wikidata, especially if someone finds it useful. Silver hr (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for valuable feedback, @Silver hr! I agree with you and guess there are at least three strategies then that may produce "clearly identifiable conceptual or material" entities, with various degrees of granularity;
Example: three outcomes (say crp, BMI, cholesterol) measured in two study groups at two time points
  • Option 1: 16 items
    • One item for each study group (i.e., two items)
    • One item for each condition (i.e., time points -> two items)
    • One item for each measurement (i.e., 3x2x2=12 items)
  • Option 2: 5 items
    • One item for each study group (i.e., two items)
    • One item for each condition (i.e., time points -> two items)
    • One item collecting the study outcomes (i.e., one item)
  • Option 3: 7 items
    • One item for each study group (i.e., two items)
    • One item for each condition (i.e., time points -> two items)
    • One item for each "type" of study outcomes (i.e., crp, BMI, cholesterol -> three items)
Option 1 results in the most granularity, whereas option 3 perhaps is closest to how we conceptually think about results (i.e., the measurement of something where the focus is on something). In general, it will produce items with duplicated names, but as far as I know, that's not a problem in itself
-- Ajarmund (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ajarmund
When adding new data to Wikidata, we try to minimize the number of new properties that we create. In your test Wiki item you didn't try to build on existing properties. Instead of creating a new material age property we would likely reuse mean age (P4442). That does need an agreement to increase the scope, but I don't see a reason why we would create here a new property.
Wikidata is also inherently about linked data. If you have a string "Pregnant women carrying a male fetus" that string is only readable in English. If you instead create https://test.wikidata.org/wiki/Q226003 a German user will see the German translation. In Wikidata the Q226003 would also be further described via structural data. Different studies that investigate the same thing would link to the same Q226003 item.
The question about whether study results should be modeled in an item about the clinical trial or in the item about the paper about the trial is also open. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChristianKl Thanks for the feedback - you're right, the example was not very thoroughly made. I will happily contribute with data but find it difficult to decide what structure is best. But since the idea didn't seem to cause much enthusiasm in the community, it might be wrong time or place
Another option is be to use items such as serum C reactive protein level (Q10438898), add values through statements with observed in (P6531) (or something better) and have the paper as reference.
-- Ajarmund (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say enthusiasm in the community is necessary to do this, as long as there's at least one person willing to do it. If you are that person, go for it. Silver hr (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As long as fields can be edited by academic rivals, ideologically-motivated bad actors, or random bozos who just want to cause trouble, keeping study results on WD is far more dangerous than just having entries on the articles themselves. DS (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An attempt to summarize the discussion;

  • Published study results are, in general, notable
    • They can (by definition) "be described using serious and publicly available references" (notable)
    • Having study results available within the strucure that Wikidata offers, has many potential use cases
  • There are ontological challenges related to how study results would be structured (scattered over multiple items) to ensure that
    • the relevant and necessary context is conserved,
    • there is consistency across items, and
    • they are accessible by querying
  • Wikidata can be edited by everyone, including malign actors, so that false data may be introduced (either by accident or intent)

--Ajarmund (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #533[edit]

Wikidata-logo-en.svg
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship:
      • Estopedist1 (RfP scheduled to end after 21 August 2022 12:36 UTC)
  • Events
    • Upcoming:
      • Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group Wikidata Working Hour August 15, 2022: Fourth session of our summer/fall project working with diverse children's book metadata. We'll be covering manually creating publisher items: showing how to create items, add statements to items, add references, and use gadgets. You are, as always, welcome to bring your own data to work on. All sessions in our project series will be recorded for those who cannot attend. Links will be added to the event page when available. Event page
    • Ongoing:
  • Tool of the week
    • KnolCase is a case-based knowledge management tool for gathering information about subjects of interest and organizing these into case files.
  • Development
    • Took part in Wikimania and the Wikimania hackathon
    • Continuing work on making it possible to add sitelinks to redirects under some special conditions (phab:T278962)
    • Lexicographical data: continuing to address the feedback from testing
    • REST API:

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.

@Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/provides_data and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/type_of_external_page are on the list "New property proposals to review" but both proposals have been closed more than a year ago. What happened? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 06:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi ChristianKl. DeltaBot didn't update the list in the past week, and I overlooked it. This should be fixed in the next issue. -Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This week's list does not contain the proposals that didn't appear on this list, so a whole week of proposals has never been announced. That needs to be fixed somehow. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've got nearly 200 uncategorized Properties[edit]

I was looking at Wikidata:List of properties and wondered if all the properties were included in it. Turns out they aren't. There are around 200 that are only identified as instance of (P31) of Wikidata property (Q18616576), not any subclasses of that. This query will show the full list -- let's work on reducing it!

I looked into this because I'd like a list of "general" properties, i.e. ones that aren't specific to a particular subject; we have quite a few of those, but I haven't found a good page documenting them. JesseW (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made a better query to try and flush out the "general" properties (or, to be more specific, add type constraint (Q21503250) to non-general properties lacking them, so only actually general properties lack that constraint, and can be identified that way): Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples#Properties_likely_missing_type_constraints. Currently has 94 results; I'll likely work to reduce that. JesseW (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've brought it down to 76; would be glad for help... JesseW (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now down to 163 -- thanks to whoever else has been helping with this. JesseW (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now 136. JesseW (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now 126. Thanks again! JesseW (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:JesseW re https://w.wiki/5aeP - can you add a column for the datatype? 89.14.54.216 17:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@89.14.54.216 Sure, good idea. Done now. https://w.wiki/5dG5 JesseW (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10 037 954 direct instances of human - thousands of instances of subclasses of human[edit]

  1. https://w.wiki/5avc - 10 037 954 statements declaring direct instance of human
  2. https://w.wiki/5avk - 34 265 statements declaring instance of subclass of human
  3. https://w.wiki/5bLp - 295 instance statements on items which have a) a statement for direct instance of human and b) for instance of a subclass of human // query added 2022-08-20 89.14.88.55 14:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

77.13.6.6 14:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, that second query finds all classes on items known to be an instance of human, not just the subclasses of human, but it is identifying an actual problem. The problems seem to fall mainly into a couple of classes:
Bovlb (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re https://w.wiki/5avk - "?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279+ wd:Q5 ." - it finds statements that declare that an item is an instance of a subclass of human. Items ("humans") can be listed more than once, e.g. one-year-old male (Q108887238) is listed four times. - 1702 left. 89.14.88.55 14:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4594 results of the second query were about instances of video game developer (Q210167) (type of company) which was a sublass of software developer (Q183888) (human profession). I removed the Q183888 statement so they will no longer show up in the query results.
Here is a variation of the second query, which gives a better overview of what types of items are used and how common they are:
SELECT ?type ?typeLabel (COUNT(?item) AS ?count)
WHERE {
    ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279+ wd:Q5 .
    ?item wdt:P31 ?type.
    SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }.
}
GROUP BY ?type ?typeLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
Try it!
--Shinnin (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All too easy for people to make mistakes when the names are ambiguous like *developer. A tool that spots the biggest number of affected items is jolly useful, so the low-hanging fruit can be collected. BTW is there a tool that shows all the entries with any errors (of the kind that flag (!) in the editor) for a given property? Vicarage (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the diff on worker (Q327055) which deals with the 'ambassador to a country' type issue (it removes Q5 as a subclass value, leaving 'person'). Who knows? 2341 instances left, if so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vicarage: We have constraint violation reports. For example Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P106 shows all constraint violations for occupation (P106). You can find the link to a constraint report page from the property talk page. --Shinnin (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was meaning that if you were interested in Danish authors, which ones had problems with their range of properties, rather than focussing on a single property. Vicarage (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re third query - https://w.wiki/5bLp - can the P31 that does not link to Q5 be moved by a tool to subject has role (Property:P2868)? prisoner, anonymous, anonymous master, refugee, missing person, child, missionary kid etc. each is a role. Editors can then decide to move it to some more specific property, e.g. occupation. The query by User:Shinnin, "16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)" shows 136 results for human, these should be fixed if the other statement is move to subject has role. 89.14.88.55 14:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Child is not something that's supposed to be listed separately as it's easily deduceable from the age. human fetus (Q26513) is more complex because it's debateable whether or not we want to consider a fetus that was never born to be human (Q5). I think it's valid to use instance of (P31) in those cases.
When it comes to prisoners, place of detention (P2632) with somevalue would be a way to express their status.
For missing persons date of disappearance (P746) with somevalue would be appropriate. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does not answer the question. 89.12.28.223 13:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again Re third query - https://w.wiki/5bLp - can the P31 that does not link to Q5 be moved by a tool to subject has role (Property:P2868)? 77.13.39.226 12:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separate entries for sociology and wiktionary[edit]

Hi all, I am new to wiktionary and want to better link it up with areas of interest. However, I have noticed that sociology on wikidata has a fairly well occupied data from around the wiki project, but the reflecting wiktionary has its own entry. Is that normal? I can see that the sociology page has the ability to add a wiktionary entry, so I am not sure why the dictionary-focused aspect of wiki has its own entry. Can these be merged/ is there a work around to add it to the main page of sociology? Jamzze (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikitionary page you linked is for the English term in sociology. The previous Wikidata item is however about the general concept of sociology independent of the English language. Wikionary likely has similar pages for other languages. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand why that is a problem? On the Sociology page I linked to, it has Wiki projects linked to it across various languages. Such as Wikiquote in English, Spanish, German, etc. Should I not then be allowed to link the English version of the sociology Wiktionary to it, as well as others from other languages if they want to? Jamzze (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wiktionary link I put in leads to a general category of English Sociological dictionary terms.
The Wikidata link leads to the overall general Wikidata entry for Sociology.
I want to be able to link the English version of Wiktionary's Sociology category on Wikidata to the general Sociology Wikidata entry so they can be found more easily. Jamzze (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The English version of Wiktionary's Sociology category is properly linked to Category:Sociology (Q6642550) which has a category's main topic (P301) of sociology (Q21201). This is the conventional modelling of categories on WD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jamzze There are items like Category:fr:Sociology (Q32858256) and Category:de:Sociology (Q32858249) and each of those has a link to the English version of Wikitionary as well. The current setup allows sidelinks from the French Wikidictionary version of the English language to the English Wikidictionary version of the English language. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subclass cycle for "botanical name"[edit]

∞ effectively published name (Q108592268)

I don't know enough about taxonomy to fix this, but I thought it worth pointing out so someone else who does can try. JesseW (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy might be the better place. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copied there, thanks. JesseW (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #534[edit]

Wikidata-logo-en.svg
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • List of created Wikidata items - a tool which combines Xtools pages created API with Wikidata API to get the list of items created by a user with their label.
  • Development
    • Lexicographical data: continuing to address feedback from testing. We are almost done now.
    • REST API: continued investigating the use of PATCH and JSON Patch and worked on a proof-of-concept
    • Birthday planning and prepping is in full swing

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.

Murder case[edit]

Can someone help with Hall–Mills murder case (Q4157206), I can't figure out how to model the people to get rid of the error flags. The ones I can find are all set up for the trial with defendant and prosecution, and not victim and perpetrator. RAN (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would add the statement Hall–Mills murder case (Q4157206) perpetrator (P8031) ... / object has role (P3831) suspect (Q224952) with disapproved rank for the three suspects. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found similar problems modelling Almería Case (Q8342043). Would be useful to know any best practice available. —Ismael Olea (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure about your particular question, but I find it wrong that two different events (a murder and a legal case) are conflated into a single item. The item looks like it primarily describes the legal case related to the murder, so a proper classification IMO would be instance of (P31) legal case (Q2334719) / relative to (P2210) murder (Q132821), unless there's a better property to describe what a legal case is about. Silver hr (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There must be a famous case that can used as a model, that has no error flags. I am not against splitting all murders into a murder case and a trial. --RAN (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall item count correction[edit]

A quick note in case anyone is wondering why the main page and Special:Statistics are now reporting ~99,000,000 items instead of the ~99,950,000 a couple of days ago - there was a bug in the script used to count this which meant that the stats had got out of sync with the database over the last few months (phab:T315693). This has now been fixed and the count shown is correct - no items have been removed!

(Note that the headline "data items" count on the main page is made up of all non-redirect items, lexemes, and entity schemas - there are about 98.3m items proper, 675k lexemes, and 350 entity schemas, not counting redirects.) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx Bangbang.S 01:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

artificial intelligence[edit]

artificial intelligence (Q11660) is currently being used for both artificial intelligence, the branch of computer science, and artificial intelligence, the category of computer software. Is there some way that these can be split into two items without causing confusion? Nosferattus (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The answer is yes for both this specific question and in general. If you find an item that conflates two or more concepts, the proper thing to do is try to find whether one of the conflated concepts already has a separate item, and move the relevant statements there. If you can't find such an item, create it. Silver hr (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of P6954[edit]

Is there a reason why both registration required and login are allowed values? Trade (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should probably ask @Eihel: who added login (Q16572632) to online access status (P6954) back in Feb of this year. JesseW (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Trade Hello and thank you, JesseW for letting me know. Subtlety is difficult to recognize, I grant you. The first value, registration required (Q107459441), means that access is possible by registering an account with the platform, then connecting with this same account. The second value, login (Q16572632), means that you cannot personally register with the service and access is only provided through another organization or certain condition, so a login is required in addition to having to log in.
As these values give a different restriction to a smaller population, I added this extra value. That said, registration required (Q107459441) encompasses both concepts. Regards. ―Eihel (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That distinction makes sense, but it's not (yet) expressed in the descriptions (or statements) attached to those items (login (Q16572632) and registration required (Q107459441)). @Eihel -- could you clarify this in the descriptions? JesseW (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

instance of role as subclass of human[edit]

Victim was subclass of human - https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q10436169&diff=1664310702&oldid=1664310455 . But victim is a role, an instance of a human can assume that role, but still is a human. What can be technically done to stop instances of roles from being used as subclass of human? 89.12.119.74 08:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might be wrong, but I don't see a way to do this with the existing constraints. What you're asking for is a general disjointness constraint, and I agree it would be useful to have one. In the meantime, you could put a Template:Complex_constraint on the talk page for human or role and specify a query that finds items that are both instance of role and subclass of human. This constraint wouldn't stop people from doing this though, it would merely cause a bot to produce a list of violating items. Silver hr (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question about a potential merge or sitelink shuffle-around[edit]

Hello! New Wikidata user here, although I've been on enwiki for a while. I came across the Wikipedia article en:Kabouter Plop, and wondered how, being a Belgian TV show, it doesn't have a Dutch or French version – but it does (nl:Kabouter Plop), just not linked from the English version. I discovered that these are linked to different Wikidata items, and thus don't share the same pool of interlanguage links: English, Esperanto and Italian articles are linked from Kabouter Plop (Q2832088) (the main character of the TV show), while the Dutch and French articles are linked from Kabouter Plop (Q71828087) (the show itself). I read through Help:Merge and Help:Sitelinks, and out of an abundance of caution decided to not attempt merging these items without asking first.

I'm not sure how to resolve this, since they are technically of different items. In practical terms we want the links in the same place – unlike the case of Seinfeld (Q23733) and Jerry Seinfeld (Q1797473), there isn't enough written about the character to warrant Wikipedia articles separate from the show, but the three articles linked from Q2832088 do start with a sentence along the lines of "Kabouter Plop is the main character of a TV series of the same name", with the rest of the article after the first sentence being about the TV show, so there is an argument (in my opinion an unhelpful one) to be made that the current linking is correct and shouldn't be changed. (The articles linked from Q71828087 are immediately about the show.)

So, do I/we

  • Merge Q2832088 (the character) into Q71828087 (the show) or vice versa, or
  • Keep Q2832088 (the character), but move its Wikipedia links into Q71828087 (the show) or vice versa, or
  • Do nothing in Wikidata, but override it, by adding local interlanguage links into the articles over there? (Obviously the not-preferred option.)

Thanks in advance, Oatco (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just found out about Wikidata:Do not merge, and sure enough, these two are in there (Wikidata:Do_not_merge/05#9001_to_10000, number 9178). Oatco (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's a method that involves creating a redirection on the Wiki, like nl:Kabouter Plop (personage) -> nl:Kabouter Plop, and linking the redirection to the other Wikidata item. Ghouston (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue that the English article should be rewritten to be about the show itself (it already is about the show; as you mention, only the first line talks about the main character, and the rest of the article talks about the show and the other characters). But that's a matter for enwiki rather than Wikidata :) –FlyingAce✈hello 00:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the items on Wikidata are about single concepts, and a TV show and a character in a TV show are different concepts, and so should have different items. This often causes problems such as the one you describe, which is unfortunate, but only solvable on the wikipedia side. User:Ghouston's suggestion might work. Silver hr (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts about a new «protection status of a natural space» property[edit]

Hi:

I'm reflecting about the need of a new property for protected natural areas, analogue to intangible cultural heritage status (P3259) and heritage designation (P1435) properties used in cultural heritage.

These are just first thoughts and I would like feedback about usefulness and enhancements. I chose to ask here instead of opening an RFC because the idea needs to be more developed first. Feel free to comment in the discussion page. Thanks. —Ismael Olea (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Tagishsimon : Answering to your removed answer:
Forgot to add to the document: yes the combination of located in protected area and located in/on physical feature is key part of the natural protection schema. And yes, the Caenlochan (Q5016835) example is paradigmatic too. My thinking is instancing Caenlochan SSSI as an protected area instead the proper designation type value. This value would be used with the «natural protection status» property. This would solve any ambiguity like the UNESCO cases and would align with the Nationally designated areas inventory model. I know CDDA database is not worldwide but the data model is flexible enough to add any country designation type without the potential nightmare of subclassing. And would help to make SPARQL queries simpler. —Ismael Olea (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New properties are not created via RfC's but via the property proposal process. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 07:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know. This is just a first analysis to conclude if a new property and its ontology model is valid or not, before writing a formal proposal. —Ismael Olea (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shortcuts for adding properties with qualifiers[edit]

I want to manually add launch dates to ships, but its tedious doing "add, type sig, select significant item from dropdown, type launched, select ship launching, add property, type poi, select pointintime, type 12 May 1873"

Can I setup a shortcut so I can bring up the entry box with a few keystrokes or clicking a button? Vicarage (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

idk. FWIW, My approach here is to have a spreadsheet template which generates the Quickstatements needed to populate a statement such as this, so that I need only enter the bare data, cut & paste the QS into quickstatements, and run. V.quick, IMO. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see how that would work, but not ideal when flipping between tabs in a browser, and a problem for dates, where the GUI is very flexible in interpreting dates, and QuickStatments very fussy about format Vicarage (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it work to copy from other ships? If you enable the MoveClaim gadget in your preferences, you can copy an existing statement to another item. In that case you'd only need to change the launch date in the item to which you copied the statement to. Simeon (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a look, but as its not drag and drop, you'd have to type in the fiddly Q number. I'm trying a SPARQL query that produces a quickstatements set of placemarker times which I could then edit to paste in the correct values, but the danger is missing some and leaving the incorrect placemarker. Vicarage (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also copy/paste the Q number. Silver hr (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulk upload of words and it's meanings[edit]

Hello, I have an igbo language newly created words. I want to know how I can add these words and it's meaning in wikidata in bulk. Let's say 500 words and it's meanings. How can I add or upload these bulk words in wikidata. How can I automate the process.

Your contributions will be highly appreciated

Adding bulk lexemes and senses into wikidata[edit]

Hi, I have these language words and meaning which I want to add to wikidata... Please how can I automate the process of adding bulk words(lexemes) and it's senses into wikidata.

TemTechie (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks

@TemTechie: You asked this question almost a month ago and @Multichill, ArthurPSmith: gave you good answers then. Mahir256 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period is now open[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

The Community Voting period for the 2022 Board of Trustees election is now open. Here are some helpful links to get you the information you need to vote:

If you are ready to vote, you may go to SecurePoll voting page to vote now. You may vote from August 23 at 00:00 UTC to September 6 at 23:59 UTC. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elections[edit]

I tried to find a suitable item to use with P31 in Q10430116. I finally used public election (Q40231), but realised that probably is intended for public elections for a public office. In this case, they are electing a bishop in Suomi/Finland. I do not know who are eligable to vote, the article doesn't tell. But I guess it is a limited group of people, since the winner got 308 votes. Donald Duck and Micky Mouse normally get more votes in public elections here, where I live. Testkonto 42 (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The description of Q40231 said something about it being for public election so I renamed it appropriately. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

9 seconds sleep between statement uploads[edit]

Hi all, Not sure if this is the right place to ask: We received permission for a bot that uploads the data from the Israeli Film Archive. However during the upload process we get a 9 seconds sleep between the processing of each statement. Is this normal? Running the bot the whole weekend resulted in just 200 new items, which makes the whole thing unfeasibly slow. Is there a way to speed things up? Are we doing something wrong? Keren - WMIL (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't speak for the latency here, but if it were possible to upload the entire item in a single edit, the edit rate would be ~14 times faster. Don't have any info on the nature of your bot's tech; a quick sketch might be helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As much as I am aware, your bot account does not have stricter ratelimits than any other bot account — thus it should be able to make 90 edits/minute at maximum which is the limit for most accounts.
Thus, my first guess would be that you have not configured your bot framework properly. There are some frameworks such as pywikibot for instance that have a default edit throttle at 10 sec/edit — if you want to go quicker, you need to change this config. It would thus be helpful if you could either verify your setup, or provide some more info about it here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are using Pywikibot, the relevant parameter is -put_throttle, alias -pt. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot/Global_Options. William Avery (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit protected - LGBT (Q17884) - instance of group of humans as subclass of human[edit]

LGBT (Q17884) - item is edit protected. 89.12.28.223 13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trains as instance of passenger[edit]

e.g. Mathura - Bhiwani Passenger (Q39047829) 89.12.28.223 13:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

including a "source" added via a tool reCh, 2019-01-15 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q39047829&type=revision&diff=834863782&oldid=554227565 89.12.28.223 13:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replaced to instance of (P31) = train (Q870). It is OK for you? Michgrig (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least for this item no more "instance of passenger". But could this in general be forbidden by the software? There are 21 others https://w.wiki/5cm$ . And for Q39047829 enwiki text contains "Both trains are hauled by a Shakur Basti Loco Shed based WDM-2 diesel locomotive from Bhiwani to Mathura and vice versa." - so it isn't one train. 89.12.28.223 17:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fixing the other 21 is a good idea. not sure this is common enough to justify a software block. the first few I checked were all added by @Nvrandow: so maybe we can ask them to fix this. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed them. Nvrandow (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. 77.183.4.252 11:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radiesthesia, dowsing, dowser, dowsing rod[edit]

The recent creation of radiesthesia has caused a lot of mess. Prior to that dowsing (Q64434026) was considered a synonym of radiesthésie/Radiästhesie thus radiesthesia (Q304787) but now is separated and contains instance of who practices it i.e. a dowser (Q113624647) and some identifiers are also placed at dowsing rod (Q1071985). Could you please help me fix this issue? Thanks a lot.-- Carnby (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible duplicates[edit]

Help needed from French speakers – can you take a look at the frwiki article for Raymundus Jordanus (Q93266293) to see if it is the same person as Raymundus Jordanus (Q4202811)? I think they are, but I don't speak French and would like to confirm before merging the items. Thanks! –FlyingAce✈hello 06:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, same, merged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

57x instance of human and instance of anonymous[edit]

https://w.wiki/5cy3 57x instance of human and instance of anonymous Q4233718, but anonymous is a role ascribed by some. Can someone with a tool please move the claims to subject has role (property:P2868)? 77.183.4.252 11:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit protected - author citation as instance of author, instance of information, subclass of human[edit]

author citation (Q669585) as

  1. instance of author Q482980
  2. instance of information Q11028
  3. subclass of human Q5

a citation isn't an author, nor a subclass of human. 77.183.4.252 11:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main image for Winchester (city in England)[edit]

Hi, may I suggest that the image for Winchester (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q172157) is changed to one showing a view of the city, not just the cathedral, such as the one at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_Winchester,_Hampshire,_England.jpg. I cannot edit this myself. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks for the suggestion! JesseW (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ITookSomePhotos, JesseW: I guess that as a general rule of thumb, we should follow enwiki in such image questions, hence File:Winchester Montage.jpg may be best Estopedist1 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. There's no very good reason for following EN wiki in this respect, especially if it winds up with WD using a montage which would have been rejected by even a third-rate picture postcard company. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1 There's a separate property for montage images - collage image (P2716). I think the idea is to keep image (P18) for very straightforward images of something, and then if people specifically want a montage, they can pill that out as needed. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflation at VIAF[edit]

https://viaf.org/viaf/58476802/ and its corresponding ISNI record appears to conflate two people with the same name, both active in Cincinnati (Q43196): Joseph Henry Gest (Q18912379) (artist and museum director, 1859-1935) and Joseph Gest (Q113628883) (city surveyor, 1776-1863, biographed here). The records referred to at VIAF, ISNI, and LCCN concern a map from 1838, which is clearly not the work of the museum director. Since VIAF and ISNI conflate the two, and the LCCN record links to the Wikidata item Q18912379, should Q18912379 be turned into a conflation item and a new item be made for the museum director? Thanks. -Animalparty (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Animalparty Please don’t. Items for conflated VIAF entries have been tried without success. The best practice is to create as many items as necessary (one for each person) and do your best to assign the correct identifiers. In some cases, a deprecated rank can be used. In most cases the libraries are also happy for bug reports (although the LC doesn’t respond and ISNI’s process seems to be broken at this time) (CC Kolja21) --Emu (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol note.svg Info I filed an error report for the ISNI (via homepage) and GND (also via homepage) --Emu (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have had success with Library of Congress in the past on a conflated individual. I created two WD items, populated them as much as possible with referenced statements and then reported the error to LC using an online form and included links to the two WD items. Library of Congress then created a separate entry for the second individual a few weeks later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@From Hill To Shore That’s really impressive. I’ve tried everything (homepage, email, …) and it never went anywhere. But I will try it again sometime, maybe I’m lucky this time! --Emu (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So in this case we should ignore the recommendation of splitting at Help:Conflation of two people? That page should probably be clarified/updated, and perhaps include best practices for different types of frequently encountered conflations, and a variety of case examples (e.g. internal wikidata conflation vs conflation at external sources). -Animalparty (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Animalparty This page is essentially an essay by Jura and doesn’t reflect current practice. This is especially true in cases where there has never been any doubt about the subject of the item – it’s just a wrong Library of Congress authority ID (P244). --Emu (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well at least it's written down. Is there anywhere on Wikidata that does codify best practices? This isn't a complaint at you, but it seems that Wikidata largely still operates on hunches and whimsy - the lawless wild west. There are very few rules and guidelines, and if there are any they are often hard to find, buried deep in the bowels of project chat archives or talk pages, or on seldom-frequented informational pages ("essays") or neglected project pages. There has to be a better system than repeatedly asking "anyone know a guy who knows whom to ask to know what to do in this situation?" -Animalparty (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Animalparty: For working with authority files, see Help:P227. BTW: GND now distinguishes the museum director from the (older) city surveyor. [1] Kolja21 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this can be very frustrating. To be honest, I really don’t understand how anything is supposed to work at all given the organizational culture of Wikidata. But it curiously somehow does work and the results are staggering especially consider if you consider the pretty small userbase (let alone the almost laughable number of admins).
But then again, my former main project’s notability criteria fill 85 KB and the index to previous discussions of changes to the notability criteria amounts to a staggering 348 KB. That’s the other extreme. --Emu (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global ban discussion for Velimir Ivanovic/Kolega2357[edit]

Hello all,

In line with the global ban policy, local project communities where the user was active should be informed of the discussion in a prominent public place.

This ban request has been live for about a month now, but proper notification was not made. The ban request will continue for at least a few more weeks, and input is welcome on the RfC page linked in this section heading.

Thank you for your time, Vermont (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artificial landform is stated to be a subclass of natural geographic object[edit]

artificial landform (Q19816755) is a subclass of landform (Q271669); following the subclass links leads to geomorphological unit (Q12766313) and natural geographic object (Q35145263). Q271669 says "natural" in the English description, but the English Wikipedia article says it can be natural or artificial. There seems to be no "natural landform" item, so Q271669 should probably be split. Peter James (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say that geomorphological unit (Q12766313) is the thing that need not be natural. Vicarage (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being buried in one's own grave - relevance and logic...[edit]

Moved from Talk:Q2042

Good evening, or something...

First: I come to this from Wikipedia, just so that background info is mentioned. Second, it was as I was looking at Charles de Gaulle's article on my "home turf" that I noticed, in the infobox no less, the highly surprising information that Charles de Gaulle was buried in Charles de Gaulle's grave (!) ...

In short, here is my reaction that I misplaced on his talkpage here, and I paste a copy of here:

quote begins:

Quite frankly, and seriously, asked: WTH do people register that somebody is buried in their OWN grave ????

In some cases, yes, there is a special mausoleum, and so that needs to be described somehow - but frankly, when this guy was interred besides his daughter in the village cemetery, and this is no surprise to anybody older than, say, 18, ... Frankly, if WD is going to be taken seriously, you guys need to do something about this kind of ridiculous statements. Let the information be the field that says "Cimetiere de ...", and let people figure out for themselves that General Charles de Gaulle is buried beneath the stone that reads "Charles de Gaulle"!

Honestly, this is a complete waste of everybody's time, but unfortunately, once the flaw is introduced, somebody has to waste more time correcting it - so please DO!

Exasperatedly yours,

quote ends.

Now that my exasperation is down to a simmer, could I ask that somebody try to explain to themselves what the logic of such datapoints(/whatever you call these fields) actually IS ? I mean, is it surprising to anyone to read that a European statesman of the twentieth century was buried in a grave ???

Still somewhat exasperatedly yours, Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC) (PS: I am grateful for WD's existence - I think... Items like this make me question the validity of WD; please assume that I won't be the only one to react to such - I can't even find a useful word for this kind of folly...)Reply[reply]

Excellent rant, Autokefal Dialytiker, most enjoyable.
WD tends to use the item having the smallest granularity for a place of burial (P119) value; so region not country, locality not region, cemetery not locality, &c. And this continues through to the level of a grave. WD has - or at least uses as a place of burial (P119) value - very few graves - 328 of them in fact, out of ~200k such values [2]. It is well within the powers of an infobox code author to check the P31 value of a P119 statement value used in the template for place of birth, and to reject a value having a P31 of 'grave' and instead choose the location of that grave. Whoever wrote the template on whichever wikipedia boiled your piss did not do this. Unfortunate. Now, you could argue that WD should exclude the use of 'grave of x' items as values for P119, but I suspect that would enrage pharaoh Khufu, who went to the trouble of having the Great Pyramid of Giza built as his grave. And WD, as a matter of policy, refrains from enraging pharaohs. So right now it is really a case of caveat utilitor, or whatever the hieroglyphic translation of that is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the statement because there seems to be some sort of a pattern for similar cases: 

SELECT ?type ?typeLabel (COUNT(?subjof) AS ?count)
WHERE
{
     ?item p:P119 [ pq:P805 ?subjof;
                  ].
     ?subjof wdt:P31 ?type.
     SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
}
GROUP BY ?type ?typeLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
Try it!

@Tagishsimon: Feel free to change it if you don’t consider this pattern correct. --Emu (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't follow why looking at the handful of items that have p:P119/pq:P805 is responsive to the issue raised by the OP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I wrote, it seems to be a pattern that is employed in similar cases. --Emu (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Saying the same thing twice does not explain it. Some P119 values are graves. Meanwhile some P119 values have pq:P805 (statement is subject of (P805)). Unsure how pq:P805 or the P31 value of the pq:P805 value bears on the complaint that templates should not display grave items as place of burial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Do you consider the modeling of these statements to be incorrect? Then you should change them, at least for Charles de Gaulle (Q2042) as I have asked you to do if you so please for some reason or the other. --Emu (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

connecting wikidata to my rest api to enable automatic update[edit]

hello, please i want to find out if there is a means i can automatic the process of adding and updating lexemes into wikidata directly from my rest api, thats fetching from my database and posting in form of adding to wikidata lexemes.in Such a way that lexemes i posted on wikidata will update itself automatically when my database is been updated. connecting wikidata to my rest api TemTechie (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal marked as ready since April[edit]

Is it ever ok for a property creator to create a proposal that is marked as ready that they themselves proposed? I ask because a property that I proposed has been marked as ready since April of this year, and no one has created it. I would gladly create it if that is permissible. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which one is it? Jean-Fred (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jean-Frédéric Likely it's Wikidata:Property proposal/onscreen participant (currently the oldest ready proposal) Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, then I think it should be de-marked as ready, as there is one Oppose comment that the proposer has not addressed, and it thus fails Criterion 3 “All opposing points of discussion should be addressed before creation occurs.”. (Granted, given that this Oppose is from me, I am obviously biased ^_^) Jean-Fred (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

merging Q874059 (Roman Catholic Diocese of Pelplin) and Q3738192 (Bishopric of Culm)[edit]

According to the papal document from 1992: "Dioecesis Pelplinensis (vetere nomine Culmensis appellata)", it means a change of name, not creation of a new entity. In the case of the creation of new entities, the papal bull clearly states this using the term: 'noviter erecta' or 'noviter condita'. Bogumił Szady (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

merging Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Halyč (Q9159034) and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lviv (Q1364829)[edit]

According to documents and state of research in 1412 the capital of the diocese was transferred from Halych to Lvov and not a new diocese was established Bogumił Szady (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There might be a problem because at least the Polish Wikipedia has two separate articles for w:pl:Archidiecezja lwowska i w:pl:Archidiecezja halicka. Kpjas (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=1715804835"