Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikidata/Archive 1

Although it affects Wikipedia, the locus of the problem appears to be Wikidata, so the discussion is being hosted there. Your feedback would be appreciated at WD:CHAT. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen {{Scholia}} added to an article on my watchlist and I suggest that it needs to be made more reader-friendly. See, and join, discussion at Template talk:Scholia. PamD 08:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi All,

Please have a look at my proposal and contribute with your opinions: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Connecting_Wikipedia_articles_to_reliable_sources_through_new_template

Thanks, Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Last Supper
Artist	Leonardo da Vinci
Year	1490s (Julian)
Movement	High Renaissance
Dimensions	700 cm (280 in) × 880 cm (350 in)
Location	Santa Maria delle Grazie, Italy
Website	cenacolovinciano.org
[edit on Wikidata]

Hi everyone -- Do you know if it's possible to draft Wikidata-powered templates in a Wikipedia sandbox? Whenever I have tried, I am unable to have the template pull data from Wikidata to fill in the template. It just defaults to filling it out manually. I'd like to be able to demonstrate this resource to newer editors in a teaching capacity, but it would make me feel a lot better if they could draft these templates in a sandbox before publishing them live on an article's page. Does anyone know of another way to do this? Thanks in advance! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About the sandbox lists the general template sandboxes. The Module:Sandbox naming style (Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Sandbox) has also crept tentatively into template space (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Sandbox). Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Will (Wiki Ed): It depends which templates specifically you're wanting to use, but many have a |qid= that can be used to generate a template based on a specific QID. See example above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: @Nikkimaria: Thanks so much, you two. These comments were both extremely helpful. I appreciate the quick response. I think it's tricky because it's so inconsistent from template to template what will show up. The |qid= approach should work great for what I'm aiming to do. Thanks for that example! Thanks again! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a template edit request at Template talk:Expand language to have the text of {{Expand language}} altered so that the text doesn't always refere to an article on the German wiki. Izno has implemented a fix in the sandbox, but it seems to me we ought to be able to go all the way and explicitly link to the source article without manual intervention. Given that the template's usage specifies the wiki that the en-wiki article was copied from, and the left-hand panel includes the interwiki links to the other language articles, it would seem trivial to get the title of the original article. Or so I thought. I've tried

* {{#invoke:Wikibase | id }}

to get the Qid as a starting point for the rest of the code. And using Spanish (es) as a sample language to get the code right before trying it on the template, I've tried the following with varying degrees of failure...

* {{Label | {{#invoke:Wikibase | id }} | es }}
* {{Label | {{#invoke:Wikibase | id }} | 'es' }}
* {{LinkedLabel | {{#invoke:Wikibase | id }} | es }}
* {{LinkedLabel | {{#invoke:Wikibase | id }} | 'es' }}
* {{#invoke:Wikibase | {{#invoke:Wikibase | id }} | es }}
* {{#invoke:Wikibase | {{#invoke:Wikibase | id }} | 'es' }}
* {{#invoke:Page|es}} 
* {{#invoke:Page|'es'}}

How do we get the title of the equivalent article in another language? Any ideas, pretty please? Cabayi (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Template:Expand language does not seem to support any sort of Wikidata access. Are looking for the Wikidata label or the article title stored at Wikidata as a sitelink:

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getLabel|qid=Q260080|lang=zh}} → 角色扮演遊戲製作大師
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getSiteLink|qid=Q260080|wiki=zhwiki}} → RPG製作大師

If you want to actually link to an article by WD sitelink title you need to create a link. If it is not at the current wiki this means either an external link to an interwiki link. —Uzume (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Wikidata link in the sidebar has disappeared for Monobook users. See

Should be fixed soon, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_181#Lost_WikiData_link_in_the_Tools_section. Yellowcard (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I've been exploring how to best use wikidata infoboxes, and I noticed that Template:Infobox book/wikidata looks broken. In addition, I had a small suggestion at the organization infobox template. I'm unfamiliar with how to deal with these details, so I figured I'd mention them here. Jlevi (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Wd § Seeking newest value, rather than current value. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat § "Last, First" for references rather than "First Last". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In case somebody has not seen this, in a few hours the Wikidata birthday online meetup starts. In particular, tomorrow at 13:00 UTC I will be co-facilitating a counter-vandalism session, and everybody who can make it is welcome. The issue of vandalism on Wikidata is particularly significant for the English Wikipedia, and, whereas coming there with the attitude "Wikidata is evil" probably would not be appropriate (this is a birthday party after all, not a court session), reasonable criticism and questions (and obviously answers) will be welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Could someone give me a hand figuring out how to leverage Wikidata for US Public Laws? Please take a look at the discussion over at Talk:List of acts of the 116th United States Congress#How_can_we_use/levarage_wikidata?. If this is not the right place to ask for this kind of assistance, could you please point me in the right place? Thank you! jhawkinson (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Tinker Bell stated:

"Also, in the future SPARQL queries will be available for Scribunto modules"^[1]

When/how is the status on this?

--Lectrician1 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Basically indefinite hold. The closest thing today is ListeriaBot. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I notice that popular templates like Template:Infobox company's documentation indicate that Wikidata is supposed to be used a fallback, and that data that you know should still be inputted as arguments.

This seems a bit counterintuitive to the purpose of Wikidata. It also makes me, a Wikidata editor and Wikipedia Infobox Wikidata converter, feel like what I'm doing is pointless.

If people are still recommended to input raw information into infoboxes, then some data that they input might not be present on Wikidata. And that means that someone else is going to have come around manually add that data and it's reference to Wikidata.

Clearly, the best situation would be everyone that adds information and references to Wikidata and the data then shows up on Wikipedia in all parameters. That way all data is linked on Wikidata with appropriate items, can be used by other language Wikis (I think this is a really strong point), and is referenced.

But unfortunately this does not happen. Yes, we have bots that copy data from infoboxes to Wikidata, but that isn't set up or running for every type of infobox. Also, it shouldn't be needed. We should just have editors edit Wikidata and we wouldn't ever have to worry about it.

What I propose

• Encourage editors to add statements for appropriate Infobox parameters on Wikidata so that they can simply just use the Infobox template and not have to fill in any parameters.
• Create a Wikiproject/process of deleting raw-text Wikidata-backed arguments currently in Infoboxes so that they use Wikidata. This is to demonstrate what parameters have documented Wikidata, show that they are referenced, and encourage editors who see the Wikidata to continue using it.
  I'm aware this is quite radical, but I'd really like Wikidata to be of use and "linked", and not just replaced by duplicate work.
  Another solution could be just to have Wikidata override raw-text values or maybe just make it so that raw-text values can't even be used anymore (the template parameter would not even be used). See (Extra) solution below how Wikipedia editors could add this Wikidata easily.
• (Extra) Maybe develop an indicator on infoboxes or some sort of process or program that makes adding statements for infobox parameters easier for Wikipedia editors. For example, an edit icon on a parameter that does not have Wikidata, but whose statement could be added by clicking on the icon.
  If that parameter has a raw text value, maybe it could be highlighted red to indicate it's not on Wikidata. An edit icon could be next to that as well that leads to Wikidata, and maybe even copies the data to Wikidata.

--Lectrician1 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Perennial answer to perennial question: No. The WP.en community has some serious issues with exporting information from Wikidata. This is a non-starter. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

To expand... it is unreasonable to expect editors to go to a sister project (a completely different website from their perspective) in order to make edits to pages in this project.

The entire point of WP is that anyone can edit an article they are reading simply by clicking an edit button, typing in the change desired, and hitting “publish”... your proposal adds multiple steps to that simple process.

Then there is the intimidation factor. Just to give some personal bits of feedback... I have looked at WD, and often can not figure out how to even find the information I am looking for. I don’t understand how a typical WD page is set up, nor how to navigate it (and forget trying to navigate between related WD pages). Perhaps the problem is on my end - I am very text oriented, and not at all data oriented... the point is that the way WD is set up, it is extremely intimidating to work with (enough so, that I simply do not feel comfortable editing it). If I were required to go over to WD to make changes at WP, I would no longer be able to edit WP. WP would (for me) cease to be an encyclopedia that anyone (ie me) can edit. So again, for me it is a non-starter as it goes against the basic premise of WP.Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: "...it is unreasonable to expect editors to go to a sister project (a completely different website from their perspective) in order to make edits to pages in this project." What's about Commons ? Snipre (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that is unreasonable as well... I have, at times, wanted to add images to articles - but because I find commons confusing to deal with, I have stopped trying. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But you have no problems editing infoboxes, right? --SCIdude (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, in other Wikipedias it is working fair well. WP editors can edit Wikidata. However, the question are whether they want or they need. It would be very helpful to point which infoboxes are outdated because of not using Wikidata. That was the biggest problem Wikidata solved in other wikis (like cawiki). However, this problem may not exist in enwiki or at least be maneable enough.

In summary: WP editors are used to the way WP works, and it works fine for them. If you want to convince them to switch to using Wikidata you need to show them which WP problems it will solve - if any.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support limited experiments or pilots This definitely will happen in the future. When it happens if it is rushed, the transition will be unfortunate and unhappy. The sooner pilots happen and the more years that the English Wikipedia community can discuss them, the more that the English Wikipedia community will be able to set rules, establish norms, and advocate for itself. Anyone who absolutely advocates that Wikidata will never happen on English Wikipedia is in error, because with the Wikimedia Foundation pouring 10s of millions of dollars into this every year perpetually and the English Wikipedia community having a budget of $0 to advocate for itself, there is an inevitability to this. Instead of saying "no", I advocate for anyone in the English Wikipedia community to set the precedent of strict terms and demands which are favorable to volunteers, while also allowing a limited number of infobox experiments in for grading and criticism. If there is no pilot, then when the forced rollout happens, then the community here will be unprepared. Right now this is a community decision but the future may not request community input of the sort which is possible now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canoeing and kayaking could benefit from some Wikidata expert input: it was a "Wikidata redirect" to Canoeing, was overwritten as a set index/dab page, is now up for deletion, and my attempt to revert it to the redirect was reverted on the basis that the target article only covered half the subject. PamD 11:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A Request for Comment on external links to library resources, which relates to this project, has started: Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources. Opinions, knowledge, and suggestions are sought. Please join in. SilkTork (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have created 2 proposals relating to Wikidata-Wikipedia integration for the Community Wishlist Survey that you can vote on to possibly implement them. I would appreciate if you vote for them!

• Tool to add Wikidata to an article
• Automated page protector Lectrician1 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed. We have repeatedly rejected linking to Wikidata in Wikipedia articles, yet for some reason the WD fans keep trying. It seems they just can not accept “No” for an answer. It is becoming perennial. The two projects are simply incompatible. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Blueboar These proposals were created with the intent of solving the very problems you have repeatedly said are causing Wikidata to be incompatible with Wikipedia. Have you looked through them? Lectrician1 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JarrahTree&diff=1044248585&oldid=1044096709, User talk:Mitch Ames#so fix it

There are apparently many (500+) Wikiprojects that have a {{

I'm working on this using QuickStatements. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames:  Done with [2]. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)