[08:45:02] does someone know what happened to the constraint violations reports? [08:45:38] first they don't work for ten days, the bot is down, then another bot try to make them and it's practically useless [08:46:13] items listed without the comprehensive tables and even without the wrong values linked most of the time [08:46:31] was the code of the first bot not available? [08:48:01] the code isn't available yes [08:48:07] >< [08:48:19] urghhh [08:48:42] well then I hope someone will be able to write again the corrects violations reports [08:49:16] because they are very very few properties around here where just listing items in violation will be useful [08:50:12] * Harmonia_Boulot will never understand why some people don't share their code when it's operating a service for a Wikimedia project [08:50:34] He doesn't have much time according to https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Обсуждение_участника:Ivan_A._Krestinin&diff=prev&oldid=81511740 [08:51:01] well no, I can understand when it's some counter-vandalism bot, where code shouldn't be public, but can be shared with other trusted users [08:52:09] I should thank Pasleim for trying to take up the mantel [08:52:25] but I was so happy when I saw the pages were updated [08:52:38] and in fact, I can't do anything with the updates :s [08:53:19] Some are really confusing [08:53:29] happy -> sad, what a rollercoaster :p [08:53:30] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P1050&curid=17592787&action=history [08:53:59] there are all like that [08:54:09] just endless lists of items [08:54:28] like we use the reports to manually correct each of them [08:54:36] (spoiler: no, we don't) [08:54:57] (or well, we can when there is a dozen violations, but not otherwise) [08:56:18] well, either Krbot will resume its activities or Pasleim will get his bot better [08:56:26] I usually trust Pasleim ^^ [09:01:11] would someone clear out the properties proposal waiting list? [09:04:54] wesalius: if no one has done it in two hours, you can ping me here [09:05:18] k, ty [09:57:57] Hello, anybody here who could clear my doubt about an entry on a disease ? [10:03:33] I really don't understand how we're supposed to use "said to be the same as" and "different from" [10:04:03] nikki: depends, have you a specific question? [10:04:08] I used said to be the same as for something which some people treat as the same thing but are actually not identical, but someone reverted my edits and used "different from" instead [10:04:32] the pair of items is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q838801 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27863866 [10:04:51] for names, for example, we use "said to be the same" to link names to names, and "different from" to link names to disambiguation pages [10:05:09] where some weird people came up with the idea of using "light-foot" to mean "nanosecond" because they're almost identical [10:05:28] nikki: I would have used "said to be the same also" [10:05:39] do you have a reference? [10:06:09] that some people use "light-foot" to mean nanosecond? [10:06:21] if yes, I would revert and add the reference [10:07:56] hm... I think I saw some pdf which mentioned it, it's mostly humorous though so it's a bit hard to find serious references >_< [10:12:22] it would be nice if search engines could filter out all the pages that are just copied from wikipedia [10:13:21] hm, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nanosecond "Some scientists call a nanosecond a "light foot,"" [10:13:36] weasel word :O [10:13:51] nikki: good enough for me [10:14:56] I guess I better ask my question in the project chat [10:16:04] kaartic: it's always better on IRC to ask your question instead of asking to ask a question [10:16:26] maybe nobody will be able to answer you [10:16:36] but maybe some will [10:16:50] I also found https://books.google.de/books?id=e9Fs6mYDWx8C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22light-foot%22+nanosecond&source=bl&sig=w_xzjT1dUq5CdEDF49Hke3L9hhs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22light-foot%22%20nanosecond&f=false where they redefine "foot" so that "light foot" means "nanosecond" [10:16:56] I'm not a disease specialist, so I wouldn't volunteer to answer questions about it [10:17:13] but maybe your problem is really with ontologies or something and we can [10:17:22] kaartic: so you should always just ask [10:17:46] Ok [10:17:50] nikki: add the references and use "said to be the same" again :) [10:25:31] Incidentally I saw the entry on "Pre-eclempsia" on wikidata. It has a lot of aliases of which one is "gestational hypertension". From what I read in Wikipedia I guess it should better be named "gestational hypertension" as the content of the entry seems to be more related to "gestational hypertension" than to "pre-eclempsia". Any ideas ? [10:27:13] So you want to switch a label with a alias? [10:28:24] Yes, because the alias seems to be the proper title for the entry [10:29:22] Anyway I'm not an expert in diseases so I am not sure if I am right [10:29:35] Any suggestions? [10:31:08] I'm worried that one of the bots would reverse it again... [10:31:29] hmm [10:31:48] are gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia identical? [10:32:18] urgh, no you are right kaartic [10:32:29] the English title is gestational hypertension [10:32:40] all the others interwikis are gestational hypertension [10:32:49] no idea why the label is pre-eclampsia [10:33:55] kaartic: i made the change [10:34:00] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2421435 [10:34:32] I was right. [10:34:39] The label was "Gestational hypertension", but a bot changed it [10:34:48] wonder why? [10:35:21] Because they are aggressively programmed, don't respect current values [10:35:38] seems to me like that a blocking motive [10:39:32] nikki: even a property that has 700± uses can fuck up the suggestions. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2120060 [10:41:39] :/ [10:45:04] Lydia_WMDE: Around? Maybe you can poke someone at WMF legal about https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2016-November/009980.html ? [10:45:05] Harmonia_Boulot: Thanks. Sorry connection was a little unreliable, so I missed a little [10:46:13] Had to see the logs for that part [10:46:58] multichill: terrible categories leading to this https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1977193&action=history [10:47:07] And I thought we marked all humans... [10:47:24] yuck [10:47:34] sjoerddebruin: would https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Christmas_tree_burning be an appropriate commons category for that item? [10:47:45] Yes please! [10:48:52] The pics used in the article weren't in that one, so I've missed it [10:49:09] done :) [10:49:51] Still terrible suggestions :( [10:51:08] oh that's even worse than before [11:05:53] multichill: will check after meeting :) [11:06:32] ok, related, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#Scripts_from_tool_labs [11:09:02] multichill: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#wikidata-externalid-url might be relevant too [11:14:45] One more thing. Is it good to have a separate entry for "pre-eclampsia" ? There seems to be multiple entries for it. [11:15:16] It has a separate article in Wikipedia. [11:21:22] kaartic: already exist https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61335 [11:21:49] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18553893 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18554442 too [11:23:06] Yes I wanted to know if it is better to merge them into one "pre-eclempsia" or merge it with "gestational hypertension" ? [11:23:21] you can't merge [11:23:45] and why would you? [11:24:11] Just wanted to know. I am not so sure. [11:24:36] we merge only if it's strictly identical [11:24:47] *strictly* [11:25:00] Ok [11:25:17] Is it good to merge the multiple "pre-eclampsia" ones then ? [11:26:13] well, is there different litterature/treatment for "mild" and "severe" pre-eclampsia? [11:26:40] do we do exactly the same thing to people suffering from it, [11:26:42] ? [11:27:19] if there is a medical article differentiating the two, in term of treatment or otherwise, we don't merge [11:27:45] if nobody see any difference between mild and severe pre-eclampsia, then we merge [11:28:36] Sorry, I don't have enough knowledge about them. [11:28:58] I thought they were created as multiple entries by mistake. [11:29:12] that was obviously not a mistake [11:29:16] different labels [11:29:25] someone wanted to create multiple entries [11:29:37] doesn't mean we can't merge but that wasn't a mistake [11:30:42] Sorry I thought you sent links of the dupes [11:30:59] Wait I'll get them [11:32:32] https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61335 [11:32:33] https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12238078 [11:32:35] https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19001367 [11:32:54] kaartic: the first is about pre-eclampsia in general [11:33:18] What about the ones below [11:34:13] seems like they should be merged [11:34:57] hmm no [11:35:07] https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AC [11:35:12] https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%A7_%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84_%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%84 [11:35:30] Sorry, I don't know arabic [11:35:40] Are they different? [11:36:08] no idea [11:36:24] but you can't merge if there is two articles in the same WP [11:36:41] if it's the same, the articles need to be merged on WP before [11:38:05] I guess it's better to leave them for now. I'll see if I could find anything about them using google translate later [11:38:45] Harmonia_Boulot: Thanks for your suggestions. [11:39:04] Good bye [11:39:51] sjoerddebruin: AFAIK toollabs is covered by the WMF privacy policy so this shouldn't be an issue at all [11:47:13] multichill: I thought the same [11:50:36] AFAIK to be a privacy violation, it needs to contain personally identifiable information like an ipaddress. Toollabs filters out the ipaddress. Otherwise tools like the maps on the English Wikipedia would be impossible [11:51:13] Or on the Dutch Wikipedia...... [11:51:33] please add that [11:51:47] Updated the bug [13:35:41] sjoerddebruin: Any idea what is happening with the constraint reports? Different bot and part of the output seems to be missing :-( [13:35:59] multichill: Ivan has been offline for some weeks now. [13:36:18] Someone tried to make a alternative due to the lack of published code, but it's seems to be a huge downgrade. [13:38:08] He didn't publish his code? Why do people keep doing that..... :-( [13:38:22] multichill: :D [13:38:30] I said exactly the same this morning [13:38:53] Maybe make it mandatory in the bot approval process? That seems like too much red tape for me [13:39:11] I asked a release a very long time ago, and his answer was "It's in C++" ... [13:39:54] My junk is at https://github.com/multichill/toollabs . My workflow is to write and test locallly, push it out and pull it in at Toollabs + scheduled job [13:39:58] maybe an attempt to make himself unavoidable [13:41:05] I use three different laptops and plenty of different accounts on Toollabs. Not having version control would be a nightmare [13:42:08] TomT0m: Took Magnus many years before he started finally publishing all his code ;-) [13:42:49] I'm planning to move some of my stuff to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:NoclaimsBot btw [13:44:29] TomT0m: Maybe you and Harmonia_Boulot can expand https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:NoclaimsBot/Template_claim ? ;-) [13:45:52] multichill: what does the page list? [13:47:15] Harmonia_Boulot: Bot goes over https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Database_reports/without_claims_by_site/frwiki and looks on each page for these templates, for example on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_de_Pierrefitte-Nestalas [13:47:28] Based on that it adds a claim: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q27862065&type=revision&diff=407889727&oldid=407338104 [13:48:07] So newly created items with zero statements automagically get their first statement(s) [13:48:52] ah [13:49:00] hmm [13:49:53] For the Dutch Wikipedia the list is much longer. A lot of infobox templates that give useful info [13:50:01] multichill: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Homonymie [13:50:21] P31:Q4167410 [13:50:26] disambig :p [13:51:25] That is possible too [13:51:34] Altough I think some other bot already takes care of those [13:51:46] uh no [13:51:57] not all [13:51:59] No problem to add it here too [13:52:20] Harmonia_Boulot: It's not in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Database_reports/templates_and_items_with_0_claims/frwiki [13:52:31] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Infobox_Explorateur P31:Q5 P106:Q11900058 [13:53:20] multichill: I'll try to complete your page but not right now [13:53:30] Harmonia_Boulot: Please do add them on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:NoclaimsBot/Template_claim . Just keep it sorted and mind the syntax (P123Q123P456Q456) [13:53:37] we have many infoboxes that could help too [13:53:39] Just add a couple [13:53:51] I do it like that too. Every once in a while I add 10 more [13:54:21] For example in Dutch someone is adding loads of football players and in Sweden a bot is importing things from Mexico [14:06:51] TomT0m: Are you sure you want to have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18152343 ? Seems a bit too much for me.... [14:09:12] * Harmonia_Boulot would delete it [14:09:57] yeah, I would expect the episodes to all have a "series" statement anyway, it wouldn't be hard to query for just the ones from that series [14:10:19] i see absolutely no case where this item should be used [14:11:21] I cleaned up https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Multichill/South_Park_episodes and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Multichill/The_Simpsons_episodes . Now just clicking around a bit in the reports [14:11:49] 100% imdb coverage :-) [14:13:12] * multichill just waits for TomT0m's opinion on this [14:13:39] multichill, don't see the harm in this. We should anyway be able to handle such subclasses (say in queries) because there is many specialization that can occur by a specific value to some property [14:14:25] I'd just now model differently the specific value for "Homeland" [14:14:44] it's useless [14:14:46] Would you mind if I nuke it in favour of standarization? [14:15:28] I'll clean up Homeland and make nice IMDB links in return ;-) [14:15:31] HakanIST, multichill in a sense, this is a matter of redundancy [14:15:43] ? [14:15:53] Harmonia_Boulot, sorry [14:16:01] I don't see any use for it [14:16:03] ah ok. np [14:16:22] the general item is sufficient [14:16:28] and it's standard [14:16:48] Harmonia_Boulot, en un sens, du coup t'as plus besoin de préciser que la série c'est Homeand dans tous les éléments d'épisode [14:17:00] TomT0m: si [14:17:06] nope [14:17:06] parce que c'est *standard* [14:17:19] et si on veut pouvoir réutiliser il faut garder une base propre [14:17:31] we should just adapt our queries to handle this case [14:18:00] TomT0m: you always prefer very small subclasses instead of using several more generic [14:18:23] and i can"t understand it [14:18:32] in most cases that's counter-intuitive [14:18:41] it make re-uses more difficult [14:19:06] it make all the ontologies more susceptible to vandalism [14:19:30] and it doesn't add any data we couldn't already store using the general system [14:20:07] it entails less statements who would be always the same [14:20:19] with no real need to be sourced [14:20:36] it mean we have to write more complex lua module for *nothing* [14:21:07] it mean we have to write more complex queries [14:21:17] which *I* know how to write [14:21:22] but not *everyone* [14:21:24] multichill: I'd still be interested in jawiki :) my japanese isn't that great but iirc it's one of the ones with the most items with no statements, so even just identifying a few obvious ones would probably be useful [14:21:26] it's a simple path : "instance of/has quality>series" with my PropertyPath module [14:21:36] and for no new information [14:23:27] it's as simple in SPARQL [14:23:36] and anyway we need a documented model [14:23:38] TomT0m: I would really love if you stopped creating such subclasses without *asking the community first* [14:24:02] your "battle of Middle Age" was plain wrong [14:24:14] I'm not sure this one would met community approval [14:24:34] you seems pretty isolated in your wanting to create these sort of subclasses [14:24:39] maybe I'm wrong [14:24:42] Harmonia_Boulot, I would prefer we can settle on a thing to model common claims for all instances of a class, this would lead to more freedom for everyone [14:24:50] but that's something that should be discussed [14:25:17] It's hard to discuss on Wikidata, most discussion end up with no conclusion [14:25:20] I find all of your arguments pretty much baseless every time we have this discussion [14:25:32] and i always want to nuke all of these items [14:25:38] baseless ???? [14:26:01] keep clam and don't lose control :) [14:26:16] TomT0m: I never nuked them [14:26:27] so i would stay i'm staying calm [14:26:45] but still, we told you to stop doing that without community agreement months ago [14:26:52] and you still create these [14:27:31] mmm whose "we" ? I don't recall. We did not have a conversation for this in like ... years, did we ? [14:27:45] some of your subclasses were plain wrong, most are right but just useless and I've never seen any one of them be useful [14:28:02] TomT0m: was it years ago, your mess with battles? [14:28:10] we still haven't cleaned all of it [14:28:36] that's because there is nothing to clean [14:28:44] yah right [14:29:08] you said P31:Middle Age battle for item that were neither battles nor during the Middle Ages [14:29:13] but "nothing wrong" [14:29:40] then you'll have to clean the wikipédia category also :) [14:29:49] Ash_Crow will be delighted to learn he has spent these last months cleaning items that didn't need cleaning [14:29:55] beacause that's were the data came from [14:29:59] ? [14:30:10] Harmonia_Boulot, he kind of thanked me for at least one [14:30:23] Ash_Crow: we are speaking of Middle Age battles [14:30:48] Ash_Crow: as example for TomT0m wanting to create subclasses when there is no need [14:31:06] about one third of them were legit, one third was questionable, one third was plainly wrong [14:31:13] Ash_Crow: multichill asked if he could delete https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18152343 [14:31:38] the very concept of "middle age battle" is wrong [14:31:49] says the historian << [14:32:04] " we still haven't cleaned all of it" → yes, I did. [14:32:22] and the frwiki cat ? [14:32:51] would be interesting to get a diff to spot weirdly categorized articles [14:33:24] I still have ~100 items to clean from the frwiki cat. [14:34:37] did you really worked from the frwiki cat? [14:35:08] Ash_Crow: I asked TomT0m to ask the community before creating his weird subclasses items [14:36:09] I cannot see how 2nd century BC battles like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q774487 could have ended up in the "Bataille du moyen âge" cat [14:36:49] same for the lot of 17th century Scottish clan battles [14:37:09] Ash_Crow, yes, or from the enwiki one, with autolist or autolist2 at the time. If stuffs do not add up maybe it's a mistake of mine with the number of recursion levels. I usually put it to 0 but ... it was a long time ago [14:38:02] Harmonia_Boulot: I think there is nothing wrong with Q18152343. The borders of this sublcass are clear [14:38:13] how does that magically mean the very concept of "Middle Age battle" should be introduced in a clean ontology? [14:39:08] Ash_Crow: and it's useless, as all the data could already be stored in the standard system [14:39:28] Ash_Crow: and it's mean several systems coexist to find the serie of an episode [14:39:36] which complicate greatly the reuse [14:39:47] Harmonia_Boulot: here it is a problem of deepness of ontology [14:39:47] it does not, Harmonia_Boulot, just a step of work, there is not much done in this area [14:40:09] because people don't expect "this standardized system work for everything except one or two strange subclasses" [14:40:53] "standardized" ? [14:41:27] it would be comparable with a "Battles of the Hundred years war" : I would prefer not to go that deep for the sake of consistency, but it's not ontologically wrong. [14:42:00] TomT0m: p179 [14:42:33] "Battle of the Middle ages", on the contrary, is really very arbitrary, with very fuzzy limits, and should be totally avoided [14:42:43] and most important we should provide a way to express that the instances of some class have al the same value for some property [14:44:05] and a standardized way to retrive the information [14:46:49] which I try to model with "caractérisé par : valeurs en qualificateurs>série:Homeland" The standardized way should be something like "either "Série : homeland " is present or the episode is an instance of a class which has this statement. If we can agree on this all is good in the better world :) [14:47:17] This is like the intersected categories discussion all over again [14:48:06] multichill, nope, with categories there were no way to define that the category mapped to a "property/value" pair [14:48:23] or a set of property values pair [14:48:45] With wikidata there is ... [14:48:54] Same intersection madness [14:49:35] very different technical background [14:49:52] and this changes everything [14:50:04] no it still intersection madness [14:50:19] it become manageable [14:50:36] and it's not madness : it reduces redundancy [14:50:37] but hey, if you are so sure of you, why *don't you ask the community*? [14:50:56] you want to do considerable changes to the way we handle things [14:50:59] ok, but ask [14:51:06] *before* [14:51:22] I like to try stuffs before, I have a bad history of RfCs ... [14:53:57] TomT0m: well now you have tried [14:54:10] you have seen some people are opposed to what you are doing [14:54:15] it's time for the RfC [14:54:42] *before* it creates more conflicts [14:56:02] I will have to translate https://blog.ash.bzh/fr/de-la-classification-sur-wikidata/ to English. [14:57:57] Ash_Crow, my reasoning is that it would be a mistake to do an "all properties" versus "all class" when we can do a bit of both [14:58:36] TomT0m: explain that in the RfC [15:00:47] Harmonia_Boulot, hard to motivate myself, it's been a while in Wikidata since "any" RfC succeeded at all ... I don't really believe in this process, actually [15:01:35] not anymore [15:02:32] then maybe you should stop for a while before creating those kind of subclasses [15:02:47] when you *know* there is some opposition to it [15:03:02] mmm the examples here are like years old [15:03:22] TomT0m: multichill came and asked to delete [15:03:27] TomT0m: the question here is: "what should the ontological depth of Wikidata be?" While a very shallow ("all properties") may not be the answer, "a bit of both" is definitely not, because it offers no insight of what one shall expect. [15:03:31] nikki and myself wanted to [15:03:44] TomT0m: how is that not some opposition?! [15:04:04] that's not years ago [15:04:07] that *today* [15:04:16] today people wanted to delete this item [15:04:23] since I created the item, it's actually years old [15:04:27] because they don't agree with your ontology [15:04:54] multichill: hey :) looked now. So you are ok if it is moved to tool labs? [15:05:22] oh so you mean you *never* create these anymore? [15:05:27] good to know [15:06:02] (as a note: "ontological depth" is a word-to-word translation of the French "profondeur ontologique" and may not be the appropriate term in English. Feel free to correct me on that :)) [15:06:22] Ash_Crow, I guess, if we can put a statement class instead of, say 2 redundant statements for tenth of items it could be a hint [15:06:48] Ash_Crow, I don't really understand of the importance of this notion [15:06:54] TomT0m: I understand yoour concern. [15:07:38] But if it makes queries inconsistent and unmanageable, it's not a good approach. [15:07:41] Ash_Crow, say, for TV series it just add at most one to the depth to have a class for series with several seasons [15:08:54] Ash_Crow, that's why I propose something consistent to say that every instance of a class have an implicit statement with main snak "property/value" [15:09:52] did you even ask on the Wikiproject, [15:09:53] ? [15:10:14] so people *know* how they should, in your mind, add data, [15:10:15] Harmonia_Boulot, I pioneered on that work [15:10:15] ? [15:10:21] ok [15:11:27] so years ago you did something, which wasn't the standard then, didn't speak of it with anyone, even after having done it, and you suddenly hope it will be the new standard way to do things? [16:22:16] I don't really want to answer this. Do what you want, I'll let it go and give up. [16:29:43] sjoerddebruin: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMultichill%2FZandbak&type=revision&diff=408353655&oldid=403300625 <- you're almost done! [16:30:01] Yes yes, just a few left. [16:30:19] Funny, someone just wrote an article about https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27864009 [16:33:31] sjoerddebruin: Are you going to create the remaining ones using mix'n'match? [16:36:48] yes, later tonight [16:36:51] meeting first [16:59:49] sjoerddebruin: Ok, did a couple too. Just say when you're done so I can do one last bot run :-) [17:07:45] The p&p id for our king was on some Kenyan company? :S [17:55:37] SMalyshev: do you make the task or I? [18:00:40] SMalyshev: i'll do it [19:37:29] multichill: P&P isn't only people. [19:38:21] The list of exceptions make me cry :3 [20:24:18] PROBLEM - puppet last run on wdqs1002 is CRITICAL: CRITICAL: Catalog fetch fail. Either compilation failed or puppetmaster has issues [20:24:38] that's yuvipanda [20:24:49] <3 [20:24:55] nothing to be concerned about :) [20:25:35] Lydia_WMDE: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Units [20:25:57] hey aude! How's the deployment going? [20:26:11] i don't know if we deployed yet [20:26:23] it's normally uneventful [20:27:06] i don't think so since i didn't get sms alert yet [20:27:39] And I don't think you can get much attention in #wikimedia-operations :P [20:27:53] DanielK_WMDE__: I asked a few days ago but you probably didn't see it, I was wondering if lemmas being based on terms will mean that the languages available for lemmas are the same as the ones for terms [20:39:30] sjoerddebruin: Only 11? [20:39:41] multichill: could be... [20:40:30] sjoerddebruin: https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Fitem%20WHERE%20%7B%20%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP1749%20%5B%5D%20.%20%20MINUS%20%7B%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ5%20.%20%7D%20%7D%20%20 [20:41:08] Oh yeah, it's a lot of manual work probably. [20:41:33] Yeah, I created these reports so we have some work lists for the next step [20:43:10] I wonder how many new entries have appeared since the adding to mix-n-match. [20:43:41] We'll see :-) [20:44:19] Wish we could tag the "notabelenvergadering" ones faster, but they don't like scraping. :P [20:45:52] Yup, that's a bit of a puzzle. Did you create the other ones sjoerddebruin ? [20:46:08] 18 to go [20:53:18] RECOVERY - puppet last run on wdqs1002 is OK: OK: Puppet is currently enabled, last run 55 seconds ago with 0 failures [20:54:15] multichill: done [20:55:59] Awesome! Fired up the bot to add the missing links. [20:56:12] Lydia should include it in the weekly update! [20:56:26] You can add it yourself. ;) [20:57:05] ok? Where? [20:57:26] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Status_updates/Next [20:58:07] The "Repertorium van ambtsdragers en ambtenaren" also includes the notabelenthingy [20:59:37] deploy! [21:04:15] sjoerddebruin: Do we have a property for that? [21:04:24] Not yet. [21:04:49] But it's listed in Biografisch Portaal, so must be easy to import. [21:05:27] Just an integer? [21:05:55] I'm quite sure we created a property for that at some point [21:06:01] http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/repertoriumambtsdragersambtenaren1428-1861/app/personen/358 [21:06:18] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Repertorium+van+Ambtsdragers+en+Ambtenaren&fulltext=Zoeken&profile=all&searchToken=awpaqna7ezcouth2s2rivdx3f [21:06:46] Hmm, [21:06:55] I thought we had a talk about that on wiki some time ago [21:06:57] cc-by btw [21:08:10] Yeah, propose a new property :-) [21:08:22] Will do later [21:09:44] sjoerddebruin: Huh, I end up at http://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/id/viqn5hf2yqz5/g_geertjan_wenneker [21:10:02] Yeah, some url's hard-redirect. [21:10:49] All use the same database. http://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vi1s2t5miazv [21:11:13] No entry for Trump yet. ;)