Wikidata:Project chat

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 Frequently asked questions Requests for deletions Merging instructions Report a technical problem Requests for protections, undeletions and other matters requiring administrator attention. To report vandalism, click here. For realtime chat rooms about Wikidata, see Wikidata:IRC.

Start a new discussion

• Afrikaans
• العربية
• беларуская
• беларуская (тарашкевіца)
• български
• Banjar
• বাংলা
• brezhoneg
• bosanski
• català
• کوردی
• čeština
• словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ
• dansk
• Deutsch
• Zazaki
• dolnoserbski
• Ελληνικά
• English
• Esperanto
• español
• eesti
• فارسی
• suomi
• føroyskt
• français
• Nordfriisk
• galego
• Alemannisch
• ગુજરાતી
• עברית
• हिन्दी
• hrvatski
• hornjoserbsce
• magyar
• հայերեն
• Bahasa Indonesia
• interlingua
• Ilokano
• íslenska
• italiano
• 日本語
• Jawa
• ქართული
• қазақша
• ಕನ್ನಡ
• 한국어
• kurdî
• Latina
• lietuvių
• latviešu
• Malagasy
• Minangkabau
• македонски
• മലയാളം
• मराठी
• Bahasa Melayu
• Mirandés
• مازِرونی
• Nedersaksies
• नेपाली
• Nederlands
• norsk bokmål
• norsk nynorsk
• occitan
• ଓଡ଼ିଆ
• ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
• polski
• پنجابی
• português
• Runa Simi
• română
• русский
• Scots
• davvisámegiella
• srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
• සිංහල
• Simple English
• slovenčina
• slovenščina
• shqip
• српски / srpski
• svenska
• ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ
• ślůnski
• தமிழ்
• తెలుగు
• ไทย
• Tagalog
• Türkçe
• українська
• اردو
• oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
• Tiếng Việt
• Yorùbá
• 中文

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 2026/08.

On this page all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days are automatically archived.

Separate new item page discussion page needed

The last 5 topics here have all been about new promotional item creation, only of interest to the authors and approving admins. And the first topic is a bloated discussion about notability 2 weeks old. If we leave them here it only encourages more, and makes this page unusable for discussion of general topics. Its was agreed months ago to have a new page for this under the Community Portal, can this be implemented before most users stop reading this page. I raised this 10 days ago here to praise and few objections, but nothing was done. Vicarage (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

We should absolutely have a separate page. Does it require anyone in particular to set it up, or just someone to be bold and do it? Yirba (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2026/07#Suggested rule, no arguments about article creation or deletion here, although I'm not sure where an articles/items for creation page was promised. Yirba (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikidata talk:Requests for comment/Notability policy reform on 5th June where Lydia agreed it was a good idea. I think it needs to be done formally rather than me doing it and slapping down posts here. Vicarage (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Hi, do you happen to have any thoughts on what the process should be for establishing a 'requests for addition/creation' page? Do we need to raise a request for comment first? Yirba (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any specific thoughts, no :) And I don't think this needs an RfC. I'd say this falls under Wikidata:Be bold. Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, if there are no objections, let's just go ahead and do it. I've started drafting a page over at User:Yirba/Requests for new items. I welcome anyone to improve it. Yirba (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

These are not requests for new items as much as spammers arguing against deletion. Spammers will still go where gets the most eyeballs. Secretlondon (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of different types of request on this page. But at least if we can reduce the amount of new item proposals on this page, it should help. Yirba (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If we have a dedicated place for such discussions, then there is a clearer case for just moving discussions there when they pop up elsewhere. For example, we should probably be more proactive about moving undeletion requests to AN.

But I worry that such a notice board will be essentially unread. And while item creation help can have an administrative dimension, it’s not directly about admin approval. Bovlb (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

A separate noticeboard that is essentially unread is better than this project chat becoming unread because of the low signal-to-noise ratio. And yes, although the guidance of admins is very valuable, I don't think it needs an admin to approve it. If someone looks at an item creation request and thinks it warrants creation, they can just go ahead and create it. Likewise, people are free to object to the creation of items, in which case it ought to work on a community consensus basis. Yirba (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Right. Admins are not in charge of what's in or out. We're the only ones who can actually delete or undelete, but we're doing our best to enact community consensus, so the more that is expressed the better. Bovlb (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Secretlondon, @Yirba, @Bovlb: I think it's also worth noting here that this sort of thing is highly precedented in Wikimedia projects given Wikipedia:Requested articles (Q4664111) and Wikipedia:Articles for creation (Q9137223). There are a number of valid reasons that someone may not feel comfortable creating an item themself, or may want to get confirmation via discussion that the subject meets notability (which I feel like Yirba's draft covers pretty well).

I'm also inclined to agree with Yirba that a separate noticeboard that is essentially unread is better than this project chat becoming unread because of the low signal-to-noise ratio (link). There's definitely also some value just in having a place for these types of requests to go that's not here. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 19:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Strong support separate page. I'd like to go even farther with a Wikipedia-style "items for creation" someday, but this is a good start. This would also be a good place for mentors to point new users who are unsure about item creation or who want a 2nd opinion before creating an item. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Polypersonal agreement

Is polypersonal agreement (Q2103015) the same as polypersonal agreement (Q2401947)? TTWIDEE (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

From a very quick look at the articles they're linked to via machine translation, it appears they are. But I would defer to someone who was fluent in Czech or German. William Graham (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that these are the same items and I am fluent in German. Kordishal (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have merged the items. William Graham (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Efficient resolution of Requests for Undeletion

I don't think that the current Request for Undeletion (RfU) process is working well, either for the requester or for other editors. AN (and also PC) often contains many such requests, and they don't always get useful engagement. These posts can be lengthy and invoke procedural arguments that distract from the underlying question of whether the item should exist. Much of the text may simply describe what was in the deleted item or how it could be improved.

Routine RfUs are fundamentally requests for community review of a deleted item. I propose a lightweight diversion process for eligible RfUs. Rather than debating a deleted item at AN, any administrator may choose to temporarily restore the item, file an RfD, and close the AN/PC thread. This gives the creator an opportunity to improve the item and allows the community to review it. RfD is our existing community process for making this type of decision and most RfUs would fit naturally in the same process.

What about RfUs that also raise process complaints? As a general principle, it is difficult to evaluate procedural concerns about a deletion without first determining whether the item should be deleted. Raising both issues simultaneously complicates the discussion and makes it harder to reach a clear resolution on either point. If the primary objective is to have the item restored, then that question is better addressed first. If the community reviews the item and determines it should be deleted, then any procedural concerns with the original deletion did not affect the ultimate outcome. Either way, any subsequent review of the original deletion process will be better informed. Bovlb (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

 Support more discussion and giving the creator time to improve an item is always good. Two questions: 1) What would make an RfU "eligible" for the lightweight diversion process? Would this require a waiting period to give the user time to improve the recreated item before the relist at RFD, how would this be handled? -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. My first draft included some specific eligibility criteria, but I removed them because I didn’t want the details to distract from the general proposal. Sometimes it’s better to work out the details in practice, but I was thinking of something like:

• not an obvious immediate grant or decline;
• has not already received substantial discussion; and
• does not involve so many items that temporary restoration would be unduly burdensome.

I wasn’t thinking of waiting to file the RfD, but instead marking it as a diverted RfU. My hope is that such RfDs would not be resolved immediately, giving the creator and the community an opportunity to improve the item and discuss it. Some other projects require deletion discussions to remain open for at least a week, but I’m reluctant to prescribe a specific minimum. Bovlb (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

A common occurrence on AN is that RfUs gather few comments and end up being archived without an explicit resolution. No-one is prepared to support restoration, so the inaction bias is towards keeping the items deleted. I believe the community considers this to be a "quiet rejection", but requestors evidently find this confusing because we see the same RfUs posted repeatedly without new evidence.

This proposal would (for selected items) reverse the inaction bias in favour of restoration. This reversal is potentially an undesirable outcome of the proposal. Bovlb (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Include more types of results in search bar suggestions?

This is honestly one of the big routine pain points for using Wikidata: only items appear as suggestions in the search bar. I definitely get that as a default behavior, but is there any way to get pages such as properties and project-space pages to appear there as well? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 00:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have the same pain, but did you know that you can search for, say, "p:URL" or "p:described" in the regular search box? Bovlb (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know about that. Is it documented anywhere? There's no info about it at Help:Search. Yirba (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I learnt that from a video I saw years ago. The help page you link does suggest the behaviour with "However, if you wrote instead "Help:Aliases", the search would know to look outside the main namespace, and you would be taken to the correct page.", but it could be clearer. Bovlb (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Aha, I see it's described at mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Prefix and namespace, and you can see the namespace aliases at Special:NamespaceInfo. Yirba (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It could also be added to Help:Navigating Wikidata#Using the search box. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to see an option that lets me search the Wikidata: namespace. William Graham (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Me too. Secretlondon (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@William Graham, @Secretlondon: You can, for example, search for wd:requests. Yirba (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

None of this is user-friendly, though. We need to be able to search for pages about the project. Secretlondon (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree that discoverability is poor, but once you know that the feature exists, it's just an extra three keystrokes. Yirba (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Well consider that a disagreement. Mediawiki can be changed to work for users. I think software should serve the users and not the other way around. William Graham (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yirba, I agree with @Secretlondon here. I regularly search for properties, project pages, etc. with the extra step or two but ideally there should be some way for me to get those types of results as suggestions as I type in the search box. At the very least it'd be nice to see if I've correctly typed an exact page name. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It’s annoying that the suggestions can’t follow this usage. I’ve actually trained people to use this feature, and I had to keep saying “ignore the suggestions”. Bovlb (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That does remind me, what would control this, anyway? mw:Extension:CirrusSearch? mw:Extension:WikibaseCirrusSearch? Who's the right dev to bother about actually getting this changed? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You could add your vote to phab:T190454. See also the gadget described by @Ladsgroup on phab:T48251. Bovlb (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Since I'm mentioned. Yes. I asked for it more than a year ago phab:T321543#10885628 Amir (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't really used Phabricator before, what exactly would "adding my vote" entail doing? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 14:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It seems I was using terminology from a different system. You can add a comment, perhaps pointing to this discussion, subscribe, or click on "Award Token". Bovlb (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are using the Vector 2022 skin then you will get a little dropdown to make it easy to search in Items, Properties, Lexemes and EntitySchemas respectively. Adding support for other namespaces to that is tracked in phab:T396865. Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Question about the overlap on machine learning method (Q111862379), machine learning algorithm (Q110688486), and machine learning technique (Q117348143) and potential merge

machine learning method (Q111862379) and machine learning technique (Q117348143) are marked as being partially coincident with (P1382), I've marked machine learning method (Q111862379) and machine learning algorithm (Q110688486) as said to be the same as (P460), but I'm left wondering if they should just all be merged into a single item? This would be perhaps easier if any of these had a wp article. Trawling through search engine results doesn't make it any clearer either. If these should be kept as separate concepts/wd items, then the items are a conflated mess. Any ML experts around who would like to weigh in on this? - Yupik (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel like regularization (Q2061913), and early stopping (Q5326898) are on different levels from "algorithms", so an item about something close but not "machine learning algorithm" exactly might be good to have, in addition to the suggested one merged item. I think they are more like elements of an algorithm, or techniques that can be applied to different algorithms.

machine learning model (Q115215420) might be another one to be considered for merger. whym (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Visa requirements for countries

I came across the problem of an outdated visa requirements map on enwiki and wondered if this data could be stored on Wikidata to allow a SPARQL kartographer map.

I did find user Tga.D's 2019 thoughts at User:Tga.D/Draft:Visa Policy Representation.

Alternatively, I think I might be able to use a data page on Commons. Commander Keane (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Since these change over time we'd probably need additional statements regarding start and end dates etc. Also policies may differ depending on length of stay, manner of arrival, whether the person will be working, etc. This could get very complicated... I would avoid adding statements on country items, they are already overburdened. Maybe new items for "visa policy of X" would make sense? ArthurPSmith (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact I see we already have visa policy of the United States (Q2918599) and some others like that. So it would be a question of how to add appropriate statements to those existing items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Were there any further thoughts on this? Commander Keane (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Structural bug - missing hasMember

Wikidata:Property proposal/has Member. TangoAF (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Missing from where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The property is "missing" from Wikidata, hence the proposal to create it. Yirba (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Found a document from 2014 but the data in it corresponds to 2007, how to format it correctly

I found data on Bashkiria. The document itself was released in 2014, and it does not specify the year 2007, but the indicators (at least for the Beloretsky District) correspond exactly to 2007. Can I use this document? (https://npa.bashkortostan.ru/7446/) - BELORECKIYSHARIK (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

How did you determine that the data is from 2007? VLysikov (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on the data for the town of Beloretsk and approximate figures for other settlements (which align more closely with the 2009 data than with the 2010 census), the specific data for Beloretsk corresponds to the year 2007

----

BELORECKIYSHARIK (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

DuplicateReferences gadget requiring refresh

Following up from Wikidata talk:Tools/Archive 2#DuplicateReferences gadget requiring refresh, which was archived: When I add a new statement to an item, I have to refresh the page before the DuplicateReferences gadget will let me copy and paste a reference for it. Where would I go to request that it be improved so that I wouldn't have to refresh the page in this scenario? Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 16:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You could join the existing discussion (from 2017) at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-DuplicateReferences.js#please_fix_the_need_to_reload_an_item_to_be_able_to_apply_copied_ref. Bovlb (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

COI guidance for a proposed Wikidata item

Hello, I have a conflict of interest regarding a proposed Wikidata item about myself. I have already contacted Wikimedia VRT and was directed to Wikidata's Notability guidelines. Could someone please advise me on the appropriate way to request an independent assessment under WD:N Criterion 2? I have independent secondary sources available, but I would prefer not to post personal/source details publicly unless that is the normal process. If there is a more appropriate venue or an experienced editor I should contact privately, I would be grateful for guidance. Thank you! TreyDexter (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're not prepared to post "source details" publicly, then you won't be able to cite them in an item, so it won't meet our notability criteria.

If you're not sure a topic is notable, then the likelihood is that it is not, in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

In need of third-party input

Hello everyone. I hope I am doing this right. We're in need of third-party input here, it would be greatly appreciated Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Report concerning Shovgu. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki data looking for where to get started

Hey team! I just created my account.

I'm a plant enthusiast and a software dev with heavy AI knowledge and expertise.

I'm looking to create a dataset for others to use to build upon my own AI training sets.

I would like to contribute my curated plant photos for others to train similar classification, identification and other AI models for free. I have 1000's of plant photos already gathered with more to come and ability to scale for more.

Is there such a project out there right now for a photo and metadata plant catalog? I plan on adding on-going contributions to make the system more robust with time. What do I need to do to start contributing? GreenestGirl (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi

Wikidata is an open knowledge graph of structured data. There are no images on Wikidata itself, any that are referenced are hosted on the sister project Commons. So it is definitely not possible to host your dataset here.

I don't think Commons would be the place for this collection either.

I would recommend to check Hugging Face or similar platforms to host open AI training sets and trained models.

Kordishal (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

So as @Kordishal noted, Wikidata wouldn't be the place, and if any Wikimedia project would, it'd be Wikimedia Commons. To help with making your own evaluation of whether Commons may be the place for your photos, I recommend consulting c:Commons:Contributing your own work and c:Commons:Project scope. If you do ultimately decide that it sounds like your photos are eligible and in scope for Commons, for the metadata side of things, what you'd be interested in looking into (which actually does involve Wikidata to some extent) is c:Commons:Structured data. I can definitely see the argument for the photos qualifying for Commons by being "educational"; it sounds to me like what would make or break meeting the Commons criteria for inclusion is whether all the photos in question are either your own work (see c:Commons:Own work) or at least freely licensed (see c:Commons:Licensing). Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 06:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

While plant images would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, they should (as noted) be described there using "Structured Data on Commons" (SDC) statements, which reply on Wikidata; and to do that means using (or creating) Wikidata items about the plant species, or varieties and cultivars (You don't say whether you are talking about wild or garden plants). So there could very well be a considerable Wikidata aspect to what you are planning.

It would probably be useful if you told us more about what you are planning to do/ hoping to achieve, and gave some examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker

Why are Darth Vader (Q12206942) and Anakin Skywalker (Q51752) at two separate entries? They are the same character. I'm not an expert in Wikidata so I would like to know if there's a reason they haven't been merged. Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: The reason for not merging items is often separate articles in a particular language, in this case Spanish and several others. Again as in this case, the items can be linked using said to be the same as (P460). TSventon (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

So one would have to get all language Wikipedias to agree to one page for both characters? Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Generally, yes, see Help:Merge#Dealing with items where both have a Wikipedia link to the same Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

LCCN (P244) and uniqueness constraint

I'm trying to improve the coverage of occupation-related Library of Congress Authorities ID (P244), which is very important for systematically crosswalking the many personal Library of Congress Authorities ID (P244). I'd like to relax the uniqueness constraint somewhat. In particular I'd like to allow two items to hold the value if they both refer to each other. For example https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85108871.html "Publishers and publishing" can be held by publisher (Q2516866) and publishing (Q3972943) which use field of this occupation (P425) and practiced by (P3095) to refer to each other. I'm not quite sure how to encode this constraint. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this, but you probably want to first discuss any changes with the folks over at the P244 maintenance project

Kordishal (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Solar Impulse conflation

Q742889 conflates three topics:

• Solar Impulse (later Solar Impulse 1) - a specific aircraft; registration HB-SIA; followed by Solar Impulse 2 (Q105412966) (registration HB-SIB)
• The Solar Impulse project (see linked Wikipedia articles) using both aircraft
• "Solar Impulse" as an aircraft model, of which two were made

The item was created when only the first aircraft had been completed.

I think the concepts should have separate items. Which one should Q742889 be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

A experimental aircraft model and 2 instances of it, but not an item for the project to design the model. I'd guess every wp article is about the model, so that one Vicarage (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple Wikipedia articles, but the opening of the one in English reads:

Solar Impulse is a Swiss long-range experimental solar-powered aircraft project, and also the name of the project's two operational aircraft. The privately financed project is led by...

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it matters a lot, but it sounds like Q742889 would make sense for the project, and we should create at least one more for the aircraft model. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how you can differentiate a project to design an aircraft with the aircraft design it produces. But this kind of thing is very common with experimental technology, and most sensible WPs have one page on the whole thing which we should focus on. The actual instances of aircraft are easier to justify, as they might become museum objects, but still are subsidiary to the project. Vicarage (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the Wikipedia articles associated with Solar Impulse (Q742889) appear to be about the project. The existing item should be renamed "Solar Impulse 1" and solely be about the specific aircraft (since we don't repurpose items), and a new item be created for the overall project and the Wikipedia articles moved to that new item. There's no reason to create an item for an aircraft model as each of these two aircraft were built to different specifications. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

 Support that makes sense to me then. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Restored from archive as unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #744

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2026-08-10. Missed the previous one? See issue #743.

Discussions

• The order of properties on Wikidata is governed by MediaWiki/Wikibase-SortedProperties. We propose moving (P2559) Wikidata usage instructions to the top, so important guidance is more visible and less likely to be overlooked. To comment on this change, please visit MediaWiki_talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties#prominently displaying (P2559).
• Closed request for comments: 19 RfC's were closed recently, too many to list here. Please see the RfC page for more information.

Events

• Upcoming events:
  • (Deutsch) nfdi4 / Workshop: Make Research Software Findable using the Software Marketplace Wikidata, 18.08.2026, 14:00–16:00 CEST (register for Zoom-link)
  • Improving Wikidata References: The hands-on session will explore how to identify and improve broken references on Wikidata , 15.08.2026, 17:00–18:00 WAT (UTC+1).
• Looking ahead: (Deutsch) Freie Universitat / Tidy data version control - Wikidata in research: 22.10.2026, 09:00 - 16:00 CEST.
• Previous events: August 04 - Blazegraph Migration office hour - see the Etherpad notes for questions and answers.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

• Blogs:
  • gdottv / The Weekly Edge article: demonstrating the Wikidata Query Logs (WDQL) Dataset talks about a paper released in February this year, (Wikidata Query Logs Dataset)
  • LinkedIn - User:Orthodoc10 describes their experience mapping and modelling knee replacement surgical practices into Wikidata
  • Wikisignals.org: Helping Editors Evaluate Reference Reliability
  • Zero-budget programs you could start tommorrow - Lessons from Wikimania Paris]
  • OpenSpeaks Tools Update: Subtitler, Tome, and Bento Go Stable — Meet Media Dashboard
  • A look at a 2026 Wikimania Hackathon Project – Wikidata Bias Detector
  • nlnet Foundation / Inventaire Split - a short article on this standalone Wikidata-federated Bibliographic database.
  • Maltese national Book Council and WM Malta renew partnerhship: Wikidata to support and feed Maltese Wikipedia.
  • [Diffblog:wikisignals-org-helping-editors-evaluate-reference-reliability|Wikisignals.org: Helping Editors Evaluate Reference Reliability] - the project aims to add to news-related organisation entities to help feed Wikipedia infoboxes with structured data.
• Videos:
  • India's Software Stories: A Hands-on Workshop with Software Heritage, Commons and Wikidata - a Wikimania Lightning talk with Mathilde Fichen and Pavan Santhosh. (Session page)
  • The Art of Editing Wikidata (Africa Wiki Women) - Guest host David Palfrey will share valuable insights and help newcomers uncover the mysteries of editing Wikidata, this session is in collaboration with Art+Feminism.
  • (no audio) Tutorial: Add Geoshape to Wikimedia Commons and connect it to its Wikidata Item - Anne Chen gives a visual demonstration of the steps provided in this google doc, found on the WikiProject IDEA page.
  • LIVE Wikidata Editing #124 is streaming today, 20:00 CEST (18:00 UTC)!
  • (Bahasa Indonesian) Wikimedia Indonesia have released 4 short videos on editing practices, querying, basic structure and data quality of Wikidata.
  • (Deutsch) ZB MED LAB | The Carpentries - aimed at researchers and professionals who work with data, a series of tutorials and workshops to teach you Wikidata, Python, R, OpenRefine and more.

Tool of the week

• Cradle-gadget is a tool by User:DanielyepezgarcesThis is an interactive, schema-based form editor that works directly within Wikidata item pages. It allows users to check, view, add, modify, or delete claims in a modern sidebar drawer or a dedicated special page, aligned with the Wikimedia design guidelines. This is the easiest way to exploit the benefits of Wikidata entity schemas, powered by ShEx.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

• The 2026 OpenRefine User Survey is now open. (Note that a link to a feature-prioritization survey is provided at the end of the Google Form so don't miss that if you want to influence what should get more focus.)

Newest properties and property proposals to review

• Newest properties:
  • General datatypes:
    • particularly (qualifier for statements to refine a value that applies more generally, when the statement applies especially to a more specific value; a more specific qualifier than "including" (P1012))
    • ‎incumbent before dissolution (entity incumbent in a position before its dissolution for an election)
  • External identifiers: CINE21 TV program ID, GCD character ID, ODiD ID, 365chess.com tournament ID, NHK ONE program ID, CINE21 company ID, ‎Fmfenxiang seiyuu ID, ‎Fmfenxiang sound ID, Elite Prospects team ID, Elite Prospects stadium ID, r-hockey.ru team ID, Classicalive artist ID, Apple Maps place id, ‎HAND ID, Brazilian Fauna Taxonomic Catalogue ID, ‎Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa ID, Giovani Artisti italiani ID, MusiciansPage artist ID, LinkedIn numeric company ID, ‎MissEvan voice actor ID, Music & Opera artist ID, Dubbinfo ID, GAS actress ID, ‎EU Treaties and Agreements database ID, syukou-club(X-DIABLO) actress ID, sukumizu.tv model ID, Paradise TV Person ID, Regional heritage of Wallonia ID
• New property proposals to review:
  • General datatypes:
    • filing unit code
    • has Member (has member)
    • introduced to (region outside the natural range of a taxon into which it was introduced through direct or indirect human activity)
  • External identifiers: Lift-World lift ID, Schiffsdatenliste ID, marketswiki, National Palace Museum Digital Archive ID, Information Commissioner's Office registration reference, Registry of Type Design ID, Ariana Museum ID, Emulation General Wiki article ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage GIS Portal immovable object ID, Sofia monuments register ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage GIS Portal museum ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage GIS Portal movable object ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage GIS Portal stone carving ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage GIS Portal protection zone ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage GIS Portal wall painting ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage GIS Portal documentation record ID, Georgian Cultural Heritage Portal movable object ID, RIdIM ID, Weibo ID, Weibo username

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

• Query examples: Ten longest State of the Union adress in the USA
• Schema examples: object with inscription - schema for objects with inscriptions (Q1640824)
• Newest WikiProjects:
  • Project Brigham Young University Library
  • Project Perth Women on Wikipedia
  • Project UC Riverside Library Jay Kay Klein Photographs
• WikiProject Highlights: Project Ontology added a Metaclasses page
• Newest database reports: Sitelink statistics by User:Pasleim.

Development

• Sustainability: We continued the work on migrating usage tracking on Wikipedia and co to the extension database cluster (phab:T424185)
• Watchlist and recent changes on Wikipedia and co: We finished our review of a sample of Wikidata edits sent to Wikidata and co in order to better understand which remaining ones are not useful. It will soon be published on Commons.
• Query Service: We continued the work on preparing the Query Service UI for the migration from Blazegraph to QLever and will move to Query Builder and Quality Constraints next

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

• Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
• Contribute to the showcase Item and Lexeme above.
• Govdirectory weekly focus country: Seychelles
• Summarize your WikiProject's ongoing activities in one or two sentences.
• Help translate or proofread the interface and documentation pages, in your own language!
• Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
• Help write the next summary!

· Previous issue · Full report · Unsubscribe . JosefAnthony talk ·MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@JosefAnthony: What is the correct target for the "MediaWiki_talk#prominently displaying (P2559)" link, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: d:MediaWiki_talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties#prominently_displaying_Wikidata_usage_instructions_(P2559). Have now fixed in the text of the report above. Jheald (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for an item: TCR Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. (India)

Conflict of interest declared. I am the President of this company. Per Wikidata:Autobiography I am not creating the item myself. I am asking whether an uninvolved editor considers the entity in scope and, if so, would create it.

The subject is an Indian materials testing, non-destructive testing and asset integrity company, incorporated in 1973 and based in Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra.

National-registry identifiers, both publicly resolvable:

• Corporate Identification Number (property P10183): U28920MH1973PTC016780. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, RoC-Mumbai, registration number 016780, incorporated 28 August 1973, private company limited by shares.
• Legal Entity Identifier (property P1278): 335800LR5UPHQB6W5P18, status Issued, registered by Legal Entity Identifier India Limited. https://search.gleif.org/#/record/335800LR5UPHQB6W5P18

Third-party accreditation record: National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), ISO/IEC 17025:2017, certificate NABLT0726MH18640, hosted by NABL: https://nablwp.qci.org.in/Form11/CertificateNew?id=263898

Independent press coverage. Five articles across four mastheads. In fairness I should note the concentration: four are Bennett, Coleman titles and only Mint sits outside that group.

• Times Now Navbharat, 19 April 2023 (Hindi), on the opening of the company's Bhubaneswar laboratory. The company is the subject of the piece.
• The Times of India, November 2022, "Boiler failures cause 3 pc loss to production of industrial units", in which the company is quoted as a technical source rather than being the subject.
• The Economic Times, July 2022.
• The Economic Times (ET EnergyWorld), November 2022.
• Mint, June 2023.

Suggested statements, if they are useful. Every property and value below was checked against the property page concerned; the legal form value is the one I am least sure of and is easily dropped.

• instance of (P31): business (Q4830453)
• Corporate Identification Number in India (P10183): U28920MH1973PTC016780
• Legal Entity Identifier (P1278): 335800LR5UPHQB6W5P18
• inception (P571): 28 August 1973
• country (P17): India (Q668)
• headquarters location (P159): Navi Mumbai (Q61445). The registered office is in Mumbai; the principal laboratory, and the operating headquarters, is in Navi Mumbai. I suggest the registered-office address belongs in the reference rather than as a second P159.
• official website (P856): https://www.tcreng.com/
• industry (P452): nondestructive testing (Q626700)
• legal form (P1454): private limited company

I am happy to answer questions, to provide the registry documents, or to have any of the above trimmed or rejected. Cyberceo72 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a question. Where did you hear about Wikidata, and how did you generate the above request - did you fill out a form somewhere, or use an LLM? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Both fair questions, and the honest answer to both is yes.

I came to Wikidata through structured-data work on the company website. We publish schema.org Organization JSON-LD, and a Wikidata URI is the standard sameAs anchor for it. That is what the item is for.

I drafted the request with an LLM (Claude). I directed it and supplied the registry documents, and I confirmed the three reference URLs resolve before posting. The identifier validation was the model's work against the property constraints: the CIN parsed against the P10183 format constraint, the LEI check digits under ISO 7064 MOD 97-10. The underlying MCA21 and GLEIF records are ones I hold. The wording is the model's. The facts and the responsibility are mine.

It was not error-free. I cited Wikidata:Notability as the reason for not creating the item myself, which was wrong, and corrected it to Wikidata:Autobiography nine minutes later.

My conflict of interest is declared on my user page. If this is out of scope, or should have been made differently, I would rather hear it than not Cyberceo72 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

https://schema.org/sameAs

These are just examples, and in my opinion poorly chosen ones. Maybe someone from WMF should ask Google to change their documentation. No wonder there are so many people asking their company be included in Wikidata.

Use a registry link to a database or linked data set that is relevant to whatever your company is doing.

Kordishal (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

That is a fair correction, and I have taken it. The LEI is the identifier that actually fits us, so the GLEIF record goes into sameAs and the code itself into schema.org/leiCode, the purpose-built property, which I had missed.

On the request itself: I should not have offered structured data as the reason for it, and I withdraw that as a justification. If the item is in scope, it is because the entity is identifiable from the MCA21 and GLEIF records, which is criterion 2. If it is not in scope, no amount of sameAs need makes it so. I am content either way, and grateful for the pointer. Cyberceo72 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I think Kordishal was criticising the example used in the Schema.org webpage, not your examples.

...but that's all it is, an example. Wikidata is not "the standard sameAs anchor", and in your markup you should use a URI that already exists. It is not what Wikidata is for. Thank you, though, for your answer.

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): making sure you are aware fo this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for the correction. I had taken Kordishal to be correcting me; he was not, and "Wikidata is not the standard sameAs anchor" is the sentence I needed.

A URI that already exists is the right rule and I have applied it. On your suggestion above of a second example about a small company using a different type of URI, mine is now that shape and you are welcome to it: the LEI sits in <code>leiCode</code>, and <code>sameAs</code> points at the GLEIF record rather than at anything here. <code>leiCode</code> is a first-class schema.org property, a subproperty of identifier with <code>gleif-L1:hasLEI</code> as its stated equivalent, so for any company holding an LEI the identifier needs no sameAs at all. I was the misreading you are diagnosing, so use it as evidence if that helps.

I will not press the item request further. If nobody considers the entity in scope, that is a fine answer. Cyberceo72 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The markup examples seem fine to me, but the "no markup" example (<!-- Utilising Wikidata as a source of URIs for entities in a sameAs relationship -->) definitely seems to invite precisely this sort of misinterpretation (that a Wikidata URI is the standard sameAs anchor; it also just isn't a very well-written example). Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 13:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The example uses Douglas Adams (Q42) and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Q836821) in markup about the latter. That seems fine to me and I'm pleased to see it.

We could perhaps ask them to add a second example, about small company, using a different type of URI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 European Athletics Championships

The ongoing 2026 European Athletics Championships (Q113553536) may inspire some work on how to integrate sports results for import to Wikipedia; currently, there are close-to-identical, manually maintained results tables across language versions. As far as I know, cycling has put quite a lot of effort into solving this via Module:Cycling race - by contrast, many items related to this event, such as 2026 European Athletics Championships – Mixed 4 × 400 metres relay (Q140967399), are still unlinked and need enrichment.

Is there a specific reason results aren't fetched from Wikidata for other sports, or has no one just gotten around to it? --Ajarmund (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with the editing in this area but I highly suspect it's the latter. There's no particular reason I'm aware of that this couldn't be done with just about any type of highly structured tabular data in principle. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 13:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems feasible, at least for some sports, here are examples for teams (relay) and individual results:

• https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM_i_friidrett_2026_%E2%80%93_4_%C3%97_400_m_stafett_blandet
• https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM_i_friidrett_2026_%E2%80%93_5000_meter_menn

And for listing medals for specific nations (currently not the counter though):

• https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederland_under_EM_i_friidrett_2026

These modules/templates should be easy to translate it anyone's interested.

I am not sure how to model sports with multiple jumps/throws/attempts though, probably keeping the best results+rank on the main item and having the attempts as separate items (eg jump attempt #3 and list all participants' attempt #3) --Ajarmund (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a few WikiProjects that may be interested in discussing this too:

• John Vandenberg (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  Bill william compton
  --►Cekli829 23:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  VicVal (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  Tubezlob (🙋) 16:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  Jmmuguerza (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  MisterSynergy
  Xaris333
  Migrant
  Mad_melone
  Сидик из ПТУ
  Laszaroh
  Habst
  Notified participants of WikiProject Sport results
• MisterSynergy Vanbasten_23 Malore Сидик из ПТУ Lee Vilenski Erokhin Dandilero Blackcat Looniverse Yuriklim
  Notified participants of WikiProject Sports
• Yiyi
  Kasper2006
  Habst
  SFB
  Sakhalinio
  Сидик из ПТУ
  Erokhin
  
  Notified participants of WikiProject Athletics

Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 01:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. FWIW, some (not all) editors have been using some version of https://trackbot.toolforge.org/wa2wiki for a while to make these results tables, which copies results from World Athletics but auto-disambiguates each athlete by their Wikidata-linked World Athletics ID. I created User:WikiTrackBot some years ago to move complete athletics results onto Wikidata and did it for some hundreds of athletes but never got around to a full run. Maybe the most similar that we have is w:Template:Grand Slam Track which auto-pulls from Wikidata. Athletics is more complicated than cycling, but I agree that the tools are ready for this. Would be happy to help with anyone who wants to take this on if I don't get around to it. --Habst (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

'The Gazette' - Wikimedian in Residence

From today, I am Wikimedian in Residence at The Gazette (aka The London Gazette).

Please see en:Wikipedia:GLAM/The Gazette for details, and let me know if you have any suggestions or requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Hi, I was going to suggest training materials, but I see they are on the list. Presumably you will include using the Gazette on Wikidata. TSventon (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course :) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I think things like King's Awards for Enterprise (Q3413988) are also listed in the gazette. Secretlondon (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

They are indeed. See en:The King's Awards for Enterprise (the external link is 404; I will check and update fixed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Changes to the disclosure of paid editing

I have 2 recent proposals to disclosure of paid editing: user pages and Wikimedia affiliates. I expect these are minor and trivial changes. If not, please discuss there. whym (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability check before creating item: VaultedMetrics (VM888)

Hello. Before creating an item I would like to confirm it meets the notability policy and get any guidance, as my first attempt was stopped by the "specific spam items" abuse filter.

Proposed item: VaultedMetrics (also known as VM888), an ERC-20 cryptocurrency on the Ethereum blockchain, operated by VaultedMetrics LLC, a registered United States company.

I believe it meets Wikidata:Notability criterion 2 (the entity refers to external structural sources / authority records that are serious and publicly available):

1. Ohio Secretary of State business registry: VAULTEDMETRICS LLC, document/registration ID 202605402626, certificate number 5560633, effective 23 February 2026. Public government record, searchable at businesssearch.ohiosos.gov.

2. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) federal register: five marks currently published for opposition on the Principal Register, serial numbers 99691147 (VaultedMetrics), 99691246 (VM888), 99691307 (VM888 COIN), 99691365 (VM888 TOKEN), 99691414 (slogan). Each is verifiable at tsdr.uspto.gov.

3. Etherscan (on-chain record): verified ERC-20 smart contract 0x062570121e9519C77CB71C7936B6C1f76C7B1119, fixed total supply 888,000,000.

Every statement in the proposed item would be sourced to these independent references. Could an experienced editor confirm whether this is acceptable, or advise what additional sourcing would be needed? Thank you. VaultedMetrics (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe this would meet any of the metrics for inclusion. It does not appear to support any other item or article (i.e., no structural need), and there's no serious external coverage supporting independent notability (discounting simple database entries, which aren't considered notable). — Huntster (t @ c) 17:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

They are not "independent"; you submit the information to them.

If you are doing this for schema.org/sameAs, please note you can use any external URL, not just Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relationship between Q847689 and Q483501 (artist)

artist (Q847689) and artist (Q483501) both appear to represent “artist”, but their relationship is unclear to me. Q847689 was originally created for the Japanese and Korean Wikipedia sitelinks, and it currently has subclass of (P279): artist (Q483501). Its English description is “types of artists, in Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese (?)”. However, I cannot find a clear definition of what distinguishes Q847689 from Q483501, nor any discussion establishing this distinction. In Japanese Wikipedia, ja:芸術家 is linked to Q847689, while ja:美術家 is linked to Q483501. These Japanese terms are not necessarily synonymous: 芸術家 can be broader than 美術家. On the other hand, Q483501 itself seems to represent “artist” in the broad international sense, so the current Wikidata structure may not reflect that distinction consistently. Could someone clarify:

1. What exactly is Q847689 intended to represent?
2. Is Q847689 subclass of Q483501 the intended modelling?
3. Should Q847689 be used as a value for occupation (P106), or should people described simply as “artists” use Q483501?
4. Should the sitelinks or the relationship between these two items be reconsidered (or merge)?

I would appreciate any pointers to previous discussions or relevant modelling conventions. 鈴音雨 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

If Google Translate is handling 美術家 correctly, that probably should be linked to visual artist (Q3391743), and not artist (Q483501); however the Japanese label for the former is 視覚芸術家 which seems different. Can you describe in more detail what is covered by 芸術家, 美術家, and 視覚芸術家? From the English perspective, artist (Q483501) covers everything that may be considered an "art", including acting, music, dance, etc, so it is very broad. visual artist (Q3391743) is specifically for painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, etc - visual creations. I can't give an English perspective on artist (Q847689) since it doesn't have an English sitelink or much in the way of description/statements - presumably a better understanding of 芸術家 would explain it more? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked several Japanese dictionaries, and I think your interpretation is largely correct.

• 芸術家 (geijutsuka) is the broader term. Digital Daijisen (Q117469207) defines 芸術 broadly, including painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, theatre, film, dance, and opera. More significantly, Seisenban Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (Q130461380) defines 芸術家 as a person who creates or expresses works of art, and explicitly gives poet (Q49757), 美術家, and musician (Q639669) as examples. So, at least according to this dictionary definition, 美術家 is a type of 芸術家 rather than a synonym of it.
• 美術家 (bijutsuka) is narrower. Digital Daijisen (Q117469207) defines 美術 as formative art expressing visual and spatial beauty, with painting, sculpture, architecture, and crafts as examples. Seisenban Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (Q130461380) also includes photography, and defines 美術家 as a person engaged in the creation or study of 美術.
• 視覚芸術 (shikaku geijutsu) is defined in the Japanese Britannica International Encyclopedia (Q109359966) as visual arts such as painting, sculpture, crafts, and architecture, contrasted with auditory arts such as music. Thus, in terms of scope, 視覚芸術 and the modern meaning of 美術 overlap quite strongly.

Therefore, I agree that 美術家 is probably much closer to visual artist (Q3391743) than to the broad artist (Q483501). However, I would hesitate to say that 美術家 and 視覚芸術家 are exact synonyms. 美術 is an established Japanese term whose boundaries are somewhat conventional, while 視覚芸術家 seems to be a more explicit or technical expression meaning a practitioner of visual arts.

This also seems relevant to Q847689. Based on the dictionary definitions above, 芸術家 itself appears to correspond quite naturally to the broad concept represented by Q483501: it can include visual artists, musicians, poets, actors, dancers, etc. If that interpretation is correct, then I am not sure what distinct concept Q847689 is intended to represent.

So perhaps the more natural sitelink arrangement would be:

artist (Q483501) ← Japanese Wikipedia 「芸術家」

visual artist (Q3391743) ← Japanese Wikipedia 「美術家」

rather than the current arrangement. I would be interested to know whether there is any reason, from the Wikidata modelling side, not to make that change. 鈴音雨 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Moving the Japanese sitelinks as you suggest seems the right choice to me. I would recommend merging artist (Q847689) and artist (Q483501), however they have conflicting sitelinks to Vietnamese wikipedia; both of those pages appear to also be describing artist in a very broad way, so we may need to retain the two items for now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now moved the Japanese sitelinks accordingly:

• artist (Q483501) → ja:芸術家
• visual artist (Q3391743) → ja:美術家

I also noticed that Q3391743 had previously been linked to ja:造形作家. On closer inspection, that Japanese article is not an exact match for “visual artist”: it also includes model making/modelers as one of the meanings of 造形作家. I therefore moved ja:造形作家 to Q141022162 rather than trying to force it onto another existing occupation item.

I have left artist (Q847689) as a separate item with vi:Văn nghệ sĩ for now, as you suggested, since the two Vietnamese sitelinks prevent a straightforward merge with Q483501. I have not otherwise tried to remodel Q847689 pending clarification of the distinction between the two Vietnamese concepts.

Thanks for the help. 鈴音雨 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

美術 art (Q42314818) can be qualitatively fine art (Q219625), things of 美 beauty (Q7242), as opposed to アート work of art (Q838948) (eg a pile of bricks for defamiliarization (Q2336124)), fine artist vs (visual) artist, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that 美術 has a historical connection with “fine art”, but modern Japanese dictionaries define it mainly as visual/spatial or formative art, including painting, sculpture, architecture, crafts, and photography.

So I would hesitate to interpret the 美 in 美術 as meaning that the work must be concerned with “beauty”; conceptual and contemporary works are also routinely called 現代美術.

For that reason, I still think ja:美術家 is closer to visual artist (Q3391743) than to the much broader artist (Q483501), even if 美術家 and 視覚芸術家 are not exact lexical synonyms. 鈴音雨 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC) 鈴音雨 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I asked about this at the Vietnamese Wikipedia community discussion page, and a Vietnamese speaker gave a useful explanation.

They explained that văn nghệ sĩ is essentially a collective expression combining văn sĩ (literary authors) and nghệ sĩ (artists), and is normally used for the group as a whole rather than for a specific individual. They also suggested that the separate Vietnamese article probably should not exist, since it adds little beyond and apart from a dictionary-style definition.

This seems to suggest that Q847689 does not represent a distinct occupation comparable to Q483501. If the Vietnamese article is eventually merged or deleted, the sitelink conflict preventing a merge of Q847689 and Q483501 may disappear as well.

The Vietnamese discussion is here: vi:Wikipedia:Thảo_luận#c-NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh-20260813012800-鈴音雨-20260812200500 鈴音雨 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Wikidata item for Shakeel Ahmad – notability question

Hello Wikidata community, Could you please advise whether Shakeel Ahmad, a Pakistani content creator and engine restoration enthusiast, meets the notability requirements for a Wikidata item? There is independent media coverage of his work, including Supercar Blondie, as well as other media coverage. Supercar Blondie: https://supercarblondie.com/man-engines-testing-tiktok-shakeel-ahmad/ I would appreciate your advice on whether these sources are sufficient and what the correct next step is. Thank you. Shakeel Ahmad (Pakistani content creator) (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Community practices advised against adding items related to, or about oneself. In my view the subject is currently not notable for inclusion in Wikidata. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 09:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

If you'd be willing to share, how exactly did you hear about Wikidata, and why are you interested in getting a Wikidata item created? We've been getting a lot of requests like yours and it's starting to look like there may be some information out there that's making people mistakenly think that having a Wikidata item about themself or their business would benefit them in some way. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 09:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I see an increasing amount of YouTube tutorials on Wikidata for generative engine optimisation, showing how to populate items knowing they will be crawled, with the intent to give their brand/company more weight in search engine results pages and be referenced by LLMs.--Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concern about self-promotion.

I would also like to mention additional independent media coverage of my work. Daily Ausaf, a Pakistani newspaper, has published coverage about my restoration of a nearly 200-year-old engine, and Daily Ausaf's verified Facebook page has also published a video interview about the same work.

I also have the independent Supercar Blondie article previously mentioned.

I am not asking for the item for SEO or promotional purposes. I would simply appreciate your guidance on whether this combined independent coverage could meet Wikidata's notability requirements, and if not, what would be considered sufficient.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Shakeel Ahmad (Pakistani content creator) (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

character role (P453) / name of the character role (P4633)

What's the difference between these 2? I see a lot of movies where both are populated for each cast member and I don't understand the point. Is the second ever different from the label of the first? Strainu (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Roles that represent real people or characters from folklore; there is not usually a separate item for each version so Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (Q486822) links to the same items as others with the same characters, and the names are not always identical. Also anything based on another work; Les Misérables (Q28234) has the same characters as the book and the musical (and there are also multiple roles that represent the same character, such as "Éponine" and "young Éponine"). P4633 also has to be used if there is no item to link to. Peter James (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Peter James. So, if I want to display the data in a Wikipedia article, should I give preference to oath made by (P543), and if not available, use name of the character role (P4633)? Strainu (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think of 'name of' as a placeholder until the linking property can be used. Arlo Barnes (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

need clarification on Help:Ranking / historization

especially for Help:Ranking in cases where property values are historized using start time (P580) & end time (P582) qualifiers. There is some discussion ongoing with User:Bean49 and me see

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Herzi_Pinki#Current_Bezirk &
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Herzi_Pinki#Multiple_districts

Is there a (binding) rule, a guideline, etc, enforcing that the value in multivalued properties which matches current date has to be marked as preferred? And that data retrievers can rely on that?
Or is it just done in so many cases by convention?

in short, Bean49 wants the value for the current point in time to be marked as preferred (as a binding rule), I think all retrievers of data should execute correctly on any situation where some property value changes in the course of time (expressed with start time (P580) & end time (P582)). I have offered hints for a solution to Bean49 for the specific problem on WP:hu.

I propose the following clarification in Help:Ranking:

Data retrievers should not rely on any assumption that the current value in a multivalued property (subject to changes over time) is always marked with preferred rank. Instead data retrievers should retrieve the value they want by specifying the date, they are interested in (in most cases: the current date).

an example:

• St. Stefan im Rosental (Q682864) with this edit
• causes a problem on hu:Sankt Stefan im Rosental
• which is caused by the implementation in hu:Modul:Osztrák járás települései, which does not care about current date

Although the problem raised by Bean49 is specific on the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) embedding of Austrian municipalities into their next admin level (and specific to the infobox implementation in WP:hu), in general this would apply to all properties that usually change in the course of time, like head of government (P6), population (P1082) and many more.

Following and enforcing a rule that needs preferred rank to be set for the current value of a multivalued property creates

• a maintenance nightmare
• absurdities like: [1] has the preferred rank on population (P1082) for the 2023 value, while the 2024 value is already available.

best –Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a can of worms. First you should push historical changes of administrative areas as high up the chain as possible (so not for a village, but for its county etc, the people who record country changes at building level are mad), but eventually you get something which genuinely changes state. I think we can accept that most queries for buildings, places etc want current status, those historical ones that don't will be clued up on start and end times, so preferred status avoids multiple results. But this is not the case for events, where both the location at the time has historical interest, and current location cultural one. Think of the Battle of Waterloo. I wrote an RFC on this and ended up with rather than have a preferred value record both if different, but with qualifier object of statement has role (P3831) with either country at time of event (Q139783048) or present day country (Q140068185). But apart from events, if you have multiple values the latest should be preferred and the others qualified (and use {end time (P582), adding start time just repeats information, and who can say when the original value started in prehistory). Single values should not have a preference, as there is nothing to prefer against Vicarage (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Herzi Pinki's disruptive activity breaks all uses of mw.wikibase.getBestStatements() Wikibase Lua function, it breaks all uses of the most common wdt: SPARQL query prefix, and mainly it goes against the main purpose of the preferred rank, the reason it was introduced. I don't see any reason why he can't set the rank properly. --Bean49 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Help:Ranking is clear: "The preferred rank is assigned to the most current statement or statements that best represent consensus (be it scientific consensus or the Wikidata community consensus)." Changing a wikidata item to add the current state for a multi-valued property should simultaneously set the preferred rank (and remove it from the previous value if used). This is very clear policy here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)