Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit

Deletion of used/referenced wikidata objects

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T334352

Hello,

@Ymblanter, BrokenSegue, Emu, Mike Peel, MisterSynergy: for information.

Item d:Q130006846 was connected to Commons:Category:Claudia Misiak, the item just has been deleted without discussion.

The references to d:Q130006846 in every image of this category became invalid, for example:

leads to the deleted item.

Shouldn't it be prevented to delete items which are in use (e.g. by structured data on commons / SDC , other items, ...) or have sitelinks to other projects or languages?

If it is not prevented, will these references (e.g. on SDC) be cleaned up after deleting the item?

In the past it also happend, that objects with an ID (Property:P6228) to the Wikimedia project hosted by Wikimedia Austria (WMAT), for example d:Q110630051, have been deleted without notice or discussion, the reference in

to this object in the bottom of the page became invalid.

Also see

M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I deleted it responding to a request at the RfD page, so I can not say it was deleted without discussion. The item is not notable because the commons categories alone are not notable, and there were no signs of notability otherwise. I agree however that we should have some automatic cleanup for these cases, and possibly some notification mechanism. Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat related is this report: Wikidata:Database reports/Deleted Wikidata entities used in SDC. We should IMO not delete items which are in use at Commons-SDC per the "structural need" clause. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Addshore, AmaryllisGardener, Ameisenigel, Bovlb, ChristianKl: for information. M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dexbot, Fralambert, Estopedist1, Infrastruktur, Madamebiblio: for information. M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256, Matěj Suchánek, Multichill, Wüstenspringmaus, Ymblanter: for information. M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is we do not know which items are in use by SDC. I am not going to run a quiery before deleting every spam item. Ymblanter (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that in the past we used the term "structural need" to speak of needs within Wikidata. Given that the deletion interface does not alert the deleting admin about usages from elsewhere, I don't think it's easy to change to treating SDC usages as structural needs. If someone wants less items like that to be deleted, petitioning WMDE or the WMF to update the deletion interface to notice cross-links within Wikimedia would be the best way forward. Ideally, if there are <10 links all links should be directly listed on the page without the admin needing to click to get more information.
Generally, it seems not to be desirable that a SEO spammer can get notability for a Wikidata item provided he can successfully have one picture of himself on WikiCommons as that would result in circular notability where the Wikidata item is notable because the image exist on Wikimedia Commons and the image is notable because the Wikidata item exists. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a completely correct deletion. You shouldn't have created it, actually all these items in batch temporary_batch_1724864964640 should probably not have been created and are eligible for deletion. Multichill (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without expressing an opinion on the notability of this specific item, I strongly agree that admins should be aware of SDC usage when deleting an item. I have thought about creating a "deletion widget" that provides various types of analysis about an item and the option to inform the user of its deletion. Bovlb (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter has a good point. It's currently too cumbersome to find out if something is used by SDC. I like Bovlb's suggestion, and ChristianKl's remark on "structural need". (Does it apply to foreign wikis, like the oesterreichwiki.org?)
I don't want to be annoying, but not so long ago there was some brainstorming about reforming the "request for deletion" process: Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2024/10#Automatic RFD notifications? For example, if we wanted to acknowledge Commons people's voice about such items (since SDC totally relies on Wikidata), "nominations for deletion" could be a transparent way how the discussions could be held. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems WhatLinksHere is becoming unreliable on Wikidata (the growth problem I guess): #Deleted Property clean-up in references. The "deletion widget" could provide equivalent usage checks using WDQS (and, due the growth problem, check against both graphs). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are a number of external projects (e.g. OSM, see User:Bovlb/osm.js) whose links to Wikidata could usefully inform the deletion process. Bovlb (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Property clean-up in references

[edit]

Property:P10589 was deleted and I have removed any Claims using it with QuickStatements having found them with a SPARQL query.

How to similarly clean up References using it? See genre in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11147846#P136 as an example? I don't think this is something QuickStatements can handle, is there another way or do I need to write a Bot to do it? OQZYwD0R (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OQZYwD0R: looks like User:ChristianKl was bit too quick with deleting the property. Usually we first remove all usage before doing the actual deletion. Not sure why that didn't happen here.
A property is also a wiki page so you can look at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Property%3AP10589&namespace=0&limit=50 to see where it's still used. That's currently 25 items so I don't think you'll need a bot for that. Multichill (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are more than 23 sadly; I don't see Q11283669 on that WhatLinksHere page.
Only looking for Items with a genre (P136) with a Reference containing P10589 returns about 2000 results. OQZYwD0R (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it seems like there are many more. A maintenance bot to clean this up sounds like a good idea to me. So9q (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to remove them with my bot, but the Pywikibot code encountered an error because the property P10589 does not exist. If you could temporarily recreate the property, I can proceed to remove the references. Difool (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill I'm not aware that we have a policy that requires deleting uses of a property before deleting it. If you think we have a policy that requires this, could you point toward it? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: it's standing practice to remove (or replace) usage before deleting the property, see Wikidata:Properties for deletion/Archive/2024 for some recent examples.
When it's a lot of work, the proposal usually gets moved to Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#On_hold waiting for the usage to be replaced. That's what I would do in this case: Undelete it for now and leave it in the on hold section until usage has been replaced. Multichill (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill there's always a constant process of adding more steps to processes and burocratic buildup. When it comes to most decisions like deleting properties or closing RfC's our main problem is that we don't have enough people making the calls.
I think it would be bad for Wikidata to increase barriers.
The task of removing claims like this could be automatically done by a bot (the same we that bots automatically remove statements that point to deleted items). I see no good reason for putting that responsibility on the person closing the request for deletion. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I'm just telling how you can do it so you don't break stuff. It's just like deleting a template in a wiki: If you don't remove usage first, stuff will break and people will complain. Multichill (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that we have a policy that requires deleting uses of a property before deleting it. I really hope we don't need a policy for everything. WD:UCS applies. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to deleting items, it's not the responsibility of the person doing the deletion to delete uses of the property. It's something that happens automatically via bots. We did that to remove administrative overhead when it comes to the item deletion process.
My common sense would be that it would be ideal if usage would be automatically removed for properties as well as that removes administrative burden. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority records from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

[edit]

Hi, we are interested to contribute information to Wikidata, we have a local database of authorities for names with more than 120.000 records, normalized following MARC format. The amount total of authorities records in our database is 568.766 (includes names, subjects, geographic, etc.). What is the procedure to share this information on wikidata? We are working with Alma and Primo, Exlibris products, and nowadays its Linked Open Data functionalities are working with information in Wikidata, then we wants to display our information, when it not exist in Library of Congress. Malvaraa (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malvaraa, thanks for your interest in contributing to Wikidata! Here's a page where you can find information on donating data: Wikidata:Data donation. I think authority data about humans would be especially interesting for us, but other topics are accepted as well if the data items meet our notability policy or if the data fits into existing Wikidata items. New Wikidata property proposals, e.g. for your identifiers (IDs) about humans, subjects, places etc., can be made here. There are several different tools for uploading data into Wikidata, and they accept various different data formats. Is your data available somewhere online so that we could have a look? Kind regards, Samoasambia ✎ 19:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, I will extract a file with a few records of names, then you can review it. Malvaraa (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, In this folder you can find a file with a few authority names records
Please let me know if it is possible to share this information in Wikidata. Malvaraa (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malvaraa Are these records available through a web portal? For example, Pablo Neruda (Q34189) record in the Catalogue of the Library of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Q65028882) is available here: https://catalogo.pusc.it/cgi-bin/koha/opac-authoritiesdetail.pl?marc=1&authid=56911. Do you have something similar? It's usually the first step: adding the ID in your database to WD items. Ayack (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, nowadays no, our authority records are displayed in an internal system only, our discovery system have the headings, but not display the complete records. I will review if I can display our authority records in the discovery system. Malvaraa (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, is possible to display our authority records in our discovery system, we are working to fix some issues with the display. Malvaraa (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to notability, if you want to import 120.000 records a good approach is to fill a bot request where you explain the the data you want to import so that you get a community decision about whether the community considers the data notable to be importanted. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am reviewing this information Malvaraa (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malvaraa: in general I think the first step should be, as @Ayack: perfectly expressed, having the possibility to link from Wikidata to your authority records; other steps (reconciliation etc.) come next. I have recently done a presentation about this with @Bargioni:: commons:File:Wikidata Days 2024 - Improving catalogues and cataloguing through Wikidata.pdf. Epìdosis 16:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you Malvaraa (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page with a list of providers

[edit]

Wikidata:Third-party providers. Please contribute so we get a good picture of the different actors providing enriching, filtering or providing alternative access to data from Wikidata. So9q (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional addition of incorrect external identifiers

[edit]

Is there consensus for the practice of purposeful addition of values, with deprecated rank, for Wikidata property for authority control by VIAF member (Q55586529) that are known to be incorrect before they are added to items? This involves VIAF clusters that are conflated, or that have one or more mismatched component, with the concern being that bots and human editors may add the erroneous VIAF component(s) to one or more items. However, this use case is not supported by Help:Deprecation, as it does not pertain to superseded values, and the values were never thought correct. -- Dcflyer (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This helps to avoid bad edits by bots, which happen all the time. If that use case is not supported by Help:Deprecation, it should be added there. D3rT!m (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcflyer: I think the addition of conflated IDs makes sense because they are not completely incorrect, but only partially incorrect; so, in order to avoid someone adding them as normal, it makes sense keeping them as deprecated with reason for deprecated rank (P2241)conflation (Q14946528) to make clear that they are not entirely correct.
What I would avoid as much as possible is the addition of completely wrong IDs (i.e. the ones marked with reason for deprecated rank (P2241)refers to different subject (Q28091153) or reason for deprecated rank (P2241)applies to other person (Q35773207)); in these cases I check that they are used in the correct item and then I remove them. Epìdosis 21:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isni and architect exception

[edit]

Why does ISNI property have this:

conflicts-with constraint property architect

I believe that architects can publish something, certainly not most of them, but adding this as an exception is probably unnecessary. SecretMonique (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means it should not be used on items that have the property architect set (so usually non-humans), but yeah it is a bit strange... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretMonique: I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of that constraint. ISNI (P213) also has a similar conflicts-with constraint for the property "author". What both mean is items that have an architect (buildings) or an author (books or other written works), respectively, should not have an ISNI, which seems correct to me. Maybe ISNI is sometimes applied to names of buildings? But it's not a constraint against ISNI's for architects themselves, they are definitely allowed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I misunderstood. I thought it was about the fact that there can't be ISNI among those people who have a job: architect. My oversight. Thanks. SecretMonique (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, Commons categories are usually linked to the corresponding WD item. That's the case for at least 90% of Commons categories which have a Wikidata InfoBox. Now Mike Peel is changing that with his bot, saying there is a consensus for that. I have never heard about this, and anyway links to WD items should be decided by the source project, i.e. Commons. Categories are the main namespace on Commons, and they should be the pages linked to the WD corresponding item. It is like this since the beginning of the project 20 years ago. It is not for WD to decide what should be linked about Commons pages. I have corrected hundreds of such erroneously links, and there has never been any issue until now. I don't understand this new stand against the standard of Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain things here to Yann at User talk:Mike Peel, but not getting anywhere, so I encouraged them to come here. I've not started doing anything new, and it's the same bot task that's been running since 2018. My understanding of current consensus is described at User:Mike Peel/Commons linking. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons Gallery links go on 'topic' items (those that link to Wikipedia articles) Please change this part, thanks. Strange the bot has been applying this problematic linking for so long. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the policy if both exist. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There recently was a thread about this here with no replies. Right here there is another one. Please change it. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I see no link to any policy 2. If that was indeed a policy I think there is now a request to have this changed which one can't just ignore 3. There are good reasons to change it, and whatever the reasons for the prior state was they're probably outdated and/or not as good as linking to the category and maybe that's not as clear to editors who mainly contribute to Wikidata and haven't see many galleries or issues with the current procedures. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See c:Commons:Village pump/Technical#Problem with Commons categories in Multilingual sites in Wikidata, consequences for Commons for a description of a problem that might be caused by the policy described in User:Mike Peel/Commons linking. JopkeB (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there about this issue, it's a template that's not following topic's main category (P910)/category's main topic (P301)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Practice for many years
@Yann, MSGJ: this discussion happened a long time ago, consensus was achieved and is documented in the picture on the right (from 2015) so edits like these are incorrect. Multichill (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: 90% of Commons categories (whenever there is no gallery) with a Wikidata InfoBox are linked that way, and there are millions of such cases, so incorrect can only be a personal opinion. Such a link is the de facto standard.
So as I said on Commons, Wikidata links to the wrong items. Demonstration (and please note that this is valid for any Wikimedia project, not only Commons): Say that a project has a page X linked to a WD item #1. Then, as the subject becomes sufficiently important, a subpage X1 is created. Will WD change the link to another item? If there is no gallery, a Commons category is linked to the corresponding WD item. Then why changing the link if a gallery is created? Yann (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still no link. Looks like Jmabel already raised issues in 2016 here which is the only thing I found by this image. Please change this longstanding practice. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two people on the Project Chat wanting a longstanding practice changed (and likely not understanding the full implications of a change) is not a reason to change. If you want a change, think about a new policy. Write a policy page that mentions all the corner cases and than make an RfC at Wikidata or WikiCommons for the adoption of the new policy. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the RfC - Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links. However, in my opinion the RfC was wrongly closed, I don't see a consensus (for sitelinking galleries) there. As a result, the results are largely ignored. Also note that Commons:Commons:Wikidata states. "Only Commons galleries and Commons categories should be sitelinked from Wikidata items." (So there is no preference for linking galleries). --Jklamo (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Towns brocks syndrome

[edit]

Explain if its same as down syndrome please. Adult research reasons. 82.132.234.234 23:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same thing, no. If you want more details, you could ask on Wikipedia's Reference Desk. DS (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It's not right that there is only one allowed wikipedia page linked per wikidata item Baratiiman (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? And can you give examples? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #654

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2024-11-19. Missed the previous one? See issue #653

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • DBLP to Wikidata - This tool is for adding scholarly articles to Wikidata utilizing data from DBLP. It also provides article authors with a tool to enhance Wikidata with associated entities, such as missing co-authors or conference proceeding entities. Demo video & Github repo

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • [BREAKING CHANGE ANNOUNCEMENT] wbformatvalue API will no longer accepts most options
  • Wikibase REST API: We are looking into how to do search in the REST API.
  • Special:NewLexeme: We merged the full migration from the Wikit to the Codex design system.
  • EntitySchemas: We are polishing the patches to make it possible to search for EntitySchemas by label when linking to an EntitySchema in a new statement.
  • Wikidata support is now available to Tulu Wikipedia and Tulu Wikisource

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

Language used by an organisation

[edit]

Organisations do not necessarily work internally or publish in the language of the country they are based in. While there is a requirement for a language of work or name (P407) for the different language landing points of their website, can language of work or name (P407) be used for the main languages used by organisation itself, as opposed to official language (P37) which tends to a legal requirement, and languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) which is reserved for people. language used (P2936) is also a possibility, though it talks about places and events. A use case might be "show me organisations interested in WWII that work in French or English, as I don't understand German" Vicarage (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P2936 has to be used: "language widely used (spoken or written) in this place or at this event or organisation". Re P407: An organization is not a work. EnterYourUsername24 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian in residence

[edit]

Does being a Wikimedian in residence (Q3809586) is enough to be notable in wikidata. Geagea (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems thin. If it had a Wikimedia username (P4174) for identifier and some sort of press release for a source, then I don't think I would delete it. We see a lot worse. Bovlb (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save the date: Data Reuse Days online event coming up in February 2025

[edit]

Hello all,

I'm happy to announce that we started preparing our next Wikidata community online event: the Data Reuse Days 2025.

"Data Reuse Days 2025 logo

The event will be focusing on how people and organizations use Wikidata's data to build interesting applications and tools. It aims to bring together data reusers and editors to learn from each other and discover cool Wikidata-powered applications. We will also cover technical aspects of Wikidata and share research and ideas for the future of reusing Wikidata’s data.

The event is taking place online, we will have sessions taking place during periods of 2 hours through 8 days: from February 18 to 27, 2025. You will be able to join sessions live, or to watch the replay later on. You will find the schedule below on this page. The sessions take place in English, and are open to everyone interested in the topic of data reuse.

We are welcoming proposals from Wikidata editors and reusers who want to showcase their applications or facilitate discussions! You can propose sessions on the talk page until January 12th. We will then select some of them and add them to the schedule. We are especially welcoming demos of tools or applications using Wikidata's data, discussions between editors and reusers, and technical presentations.

While waiting for the event to take place, you can also rewatch some sessions from our last edition in 2022.

If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to write on the talk page or to reach out to me directly. Best, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Just for fun I would like to manually add some facts of the type: "Investor X invested Y (dollars|euros|etc.) into company Z at date W."

Is there a currently well established way of modeling that?

The closest property I could find was funder (P8324). But then how do I set the date and amount in a way that other casual users like me are also likely to use the same mechanism so we can have a coherent model?

E.g. for the money amount I could use prize money (P2121), which has the advantage of trying to restrict the value to currencies, as a qualifier but it doesn't feel so intuitive and I'm not sure others would find it.

Similarly for the date, the best bet seem like announcement date (P6949) rather than point in time (P585) since we only generally know when something was announced, rather than agreed upon or money transferred.

Another related concept in existence is securities offering (Q3489761).

Another thing that comes to mind is in a funding round it is not generally known which entity gave how much funding exactly, so perhaps funder (P8324) won't even cut it. A better model generally would be "funding round value, date and investors involved".

Or you think this case would justify adding a new property of some kind, or some other way to help things be coherent naturally?

This type data can be quite valuable, e.g. https://crunchbase.com/ actually sells this type of funding data, but for now I'm just interested in learning how Wikidata works a little better.

Maybe cc. @FULBERT who introduced "funder" in 2020. Cirosantilli2 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is price (P2284) where the original proposal makes it sound like it's only for list prices of products, but the current property description makes it sound like it could also be used to document actual price paid. I also wonder how you might model investments where non-monetary assets are exchanged, like stock or cloud credits (Microsoft's investment in OpenAI, for example). And more broadly, do you anticipate attaching the funder statements to the company/fund item or creating a new item for the specific investment series? An item for each series might make sense when there are a large number of investors over many rounds and their statements would become dominating on the main company/fund item.
Just some rambling thoughts. The members of WikiProject Companies might have some more developed ideas. Notified participants of WikiProject Companies William Graham (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URL redirector for P12393

[edit]

For IFOPT stop ID (P12393), I thought it’d be good to point users to an authoritative database with current and complete data for these external identifiers. However, there’s no such global database, and the existing country-specific databases seem very incomplete outside their respective countries. To work around this, I’ve implemented an URL redirector in a few lines of Python, running on Toolforge. Is anyone here interested in becoming a co-maintainer for this tool? I don't expect much work, but it would be good to have some co-maintainers in case I get hit by a bus :-) --Sascha (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sascha: You can add me, though I'm not sure I'll be able to help much. I run the generic redirector that some properties use here so it's definitely related. Specific ones like this are probably better though. My Toolforge username is 'apsmith'. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on November 29th, 16:00 UTC

[edit]

Hello everyone,

The next language community meeting is coming up next week, on November 29th, at 16:00 UTC (Zonestamp! For your timezone <https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1732896000>). If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Language_and_Product_Localization/Community_meetings#29_November_2024>.

This participant-driven meeting will be organized by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language Product Localization team and the Language Diversity Hub. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Moore Wikipedia, and the language support track at Wiki Indaba. We will also have members from the Wayuunaiki community joining us to share their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community within our movement. This meeting will have a Spanish interpretation.

Looking forward to seeing you at the language community meeting! Cheers, Srishti 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2278162094"