On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page'sarchive index. The current archive is located at2026/02.
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with{{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.
You can useModule:Wd(Q24733825) for this. {{#invoke:Wd|property|qualifier|P856|P407}} ->https://portal.fpa.pt/seleccoes/selecao-a-masculina/(Portuguese). {{#invoke:Wd|qualifier|P856|P407}} -> Portuguese retrieves the language only. To make the examples work here, I've manually specified the item as in {{#invoke:Wd|qualifier|Q786147|P856|P407}} but you don't need to do that if you use the module on the linked page. Now, I can't really explain exactly how this module works in a comment so I'd suggest you read the documentation.Warudo (talk)14:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I'm seeing the term "anthroponomy" appear in some publications ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]) and I want to create a Wikidata item for it, but I'm having a hard time really understanding what the term means (or if maybe there are several meanings using the same term).StarTrekker (talk)01:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The original Russian term попутчик (жаргон), as well as the Ukrainian and other versions are atQ127177524, while the English equivalent Fellow traveller calqued from it as well as the bulk of the versions are atfellow traveler(Q1752720). The problem is that the GermanMitläufer, used for Nazi sympathisers, along with the cognate Dutch, Danish and Norwegian words, has been linked withfellow traveler(Q1752720) (where English 'Fellow-traveller' is); but the real German equivalent, used specifically for Communists and not inherently negative, isWeggenossen, which it atQ127177524, like the original Russian. A complication is that the Swedishmedlöpare is apparently used for Communist sympathisers, too; but still, the way the entries are currently linked is clearly inadequate. IMO,Mitläufer and the like should be removed and then the rest should be merged, but the software refuses to do it, saying that there are 'Conflicting sitelinks for dewiki'.~2026-80846-8 (talk)21:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Would anyone protest if i split "unstable identifier" into it's own seperate item? There's a huge difference between statements that by their very nature are not static vs. unstable identifiers that frequently deprecates or frequently redirectsTrade (talk)05:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
We already know what the datatype is, so splitting it by datatype is redundant. I agree with Dexxor thatsometimes changes(Q24025284) seems sufficient. If you think we still need an extra frequency level, I think you should propose a value which is about how often it changes, independent of the datatype, and describe what the intended purpose of the distinction is between it andsometimes changes(Q24025284). -Nikki (talk)08:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
IntegratingYourself to Science dataset in Wikidata
Latest comment:3 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I would like to ask your opinion about integrating theYourself to Science dataset into Wikidata:https://yourselftoscience.org/data .
The dataset is completely open source, in the public domain (CC0) and is already aligned to Wikidata.The dataset contains all the opportunities for citizens to contribute part of themselves (such as biological samples and body/tissues) and data (such as genetic, wearable data, etc.) to research. The types of opportunities are very diverse, ranging from commercial or university projects to clinical trials to smartphone apps etc.
This is a report with all the items and their presence/absence on Wikidata. I think the dataset can help enrich the Wikidata database, for example: it identifies missing items likeApple Research andSPARK for Autism (fromSimons Foundation) and enriches them (including existing ones) with organization, data types (likegenome andhealth data), headquarter country, citations etc.
Yourself to Science's dataset uses persistent UUIDs and provides RDF/TTL, JSON, and CSV endpoints.Also, if you have any suggestions on how to improve it and its compatibility with Wikidata I'm happy to implement them.
A cursory glance suggests the site is a list of 70 worthy projects. Is the dataset you talk about more than just a list of organisations and their areas of research, scope etc. It would be a good idea for someone to spend an afternoon checking we have the information, but I'm not sure what more integration you have in mind. We havedescribed by source(P1343) which could be used to connect WD to the site, but I'm not clear it needs a dedicated property. First stage is to get an entry for the site itself, but it needs to be notable and preferably not done by someone with a conflict of interest.Vicarage (talk)21:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
So do you think the best approach is to periodically manually integrate the missing information?
Also, if a dataset is used as a source of information, isn't the practice to at least put a reference to the original source?
Obviously the dataset is CC0 so there is no legal obligation, but I thought that Wikidata tends to give credit/reference to the source used (I am pretty new to it, I've never imported a dataset).
RegardingWD:N, I don't know ifYourself to Science already meets the requirements: the item wouldn't contain a sitelink and isn't yet described by multiple external serious references, but maybe it fulfills a Wikidata structural need?Digressivo (talk)18:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can see no merit for anything automated here. A reference can always be to a bald URL, but mentioning a item on WD as well is better. . I add sites because I think their pages are worth mentioning and adescribed by source(P1343) is better than a bald URL, but do that someone needs to add the item, and that is best not done by someone with close contact with the organisation. I'm not sure there sufficient content on your site for me to do that, but ask around in relevant WikiProjects, and someone else might. The rules about external serious references don't really work for standalone websites anyway.Vicarage (talk)18:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will follow your suggestion to ask in the relevant WikiProjects if someone else thinks it might add it as an item.
But in the case there is no immediate interest in creating that item (to use it asdescribed by source(P1343)), if I understood correctly, the standard fallback is that I can proceed by manually enriching existing items and creating new notable ones (like OrganDonor.gov) using theYourself to Science URL as thereference URL(P854).Digressivo (talk)01:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
yes, that woukd be very useful to the project. We don't want to put people off contributing, its just we see far too many people who only want to promote themselves, so its great that you want to do more. The ideal would be that in time your website is fed by a query from here, so you benefit from others updating the items and adding more.Vicarage (talk)06:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Far-right (Q127869500),radical right (Q21848959) andextreme right (Q204481)
Latest comment:1 day ago26 comments4 people in discussion
Hello everyone,
Followingthis discussion in the French-languageWikidata:Bistro, I was advised to discuss it here as well.
On July 26, 2024, I created the itemfar-right (or in Dutch:uiterst rechts) (Q127869500). A while ago, I had been exploring the topic of far-right, radical right and extreme right. I came acrossthis article, which contains an interesting diagram on page 32 in figure 2.1. Tore Bjørgo and Jacob Ravndal developed a typology for the radical and extreme right, based on three studies, including one by political scientist Cas Mudde, in which it is striking that the radical and extreme right are grouped under the umbrella term "far-right". This seemed to me to be a really good solution to all the difficulties associated with the three terms. The extreme right is something that the Nazis were – anti-democratic and violent. But in Europe, you now see radical right-wing parties emerging. To call them extreme right-wing is, in my opinion, misplaced. That is why there is a difference between the radical right and the extreme right. But how should you refer to those two together? To me,far-right seems the most logical. Radical right and extreme right are known for their far right-wing ideology, but they are not the same. The diagram I mentioned earlier is also included inthis English-language article.
So my question here is: do you agree with me thatfar-right (Q127869500),radical right (Q21848959) andextreme right (Q204481) should be three different Wikidata items? In my opinion, this would be appropriate, if only to demonstrate that they are three different things (even though there are no articles underfar-right (yet)).
If I understand what you mean, "far right" should be an item including "radical right" and "extreme-right" and extreme-right should be also known as fascism or nazism.
it is since then illustrated by Marine Le Pen but is named in french "droite radicale", which is a misinterpretation since "droite radicale" is the right wing of right party in France
Changes on these items should be made cautiously regarding the consequences which could occur in different languages of WD.
For example, it makes appear 2 items with same denomination "extrême-droite" in french as we discussed:far-right(Q127869500) andfar-right(Q204481) which is inconsistent, and that in french, "droite radicale" is said used in anglosaxon cultur where "extreme-droite" is used in french.
I now see that @Wikibilityhas changed the English-language main term "right-wing extremism" to "far-right" atQ204481. Now it's getting a bit messy, I think. 😅 Why would the far right be the same as the extreme right? And why would there be a difference between the far right and the radical right? Why don't we just lump everything that's right-wing together – alt right, New Right, right-wing populism, right-liberalism, center-right, etc. I might reveal the answer why we shouldn't do that: because they are all different forms and types of right-wing politics. Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)01:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments. I think there is some confusion betweenterms used interchangeably in sources andconcepts being identical in Wikidata.
My edits were not meant to say that far right, radical right and extreme right are the same thing. The aim was to align far-right with the existing modeling of far-left (Q1129409), where an umbrella term covers different currents.Wikibility (talk)02:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply, @Wikibility! I understand what you mean. The only problem is that extreme left, radical left and far left are never really discussed, at least not where I live. For example, when a political party is labelled as radical or extreme left by someone, no one seems to really care. I never really hear about it on public or commercial broadcasters or in newspapers. Only in alternative (right-wing) media do they mention animal rights organizations or anti-fascists as being extreme leftists. But I never hear the major news broadcasters talk about the radical or extreme left. However, if you look at the radical right and the extreme right, these terms appear in the media on a daily basis. Many news channels talk about extreme right parties, but parties such asParty for Freedom(Q332739),Forum for Democracy(Q28163962) andJA21(Q104244010) are obviously not happy when they are labeled as extreme right. They feel they are being framed and demonized. In 2024, the Speaker of theHouse of Representatives(Q233262)stated that labeling a party as far-right is a Nazi comparison.
Personally, I think that Wikidata items describing far-right philosophies or ideologies should be treated differently than far-left philosophies or ideologies (more nuanced), because they are discussed more and (in my opinion) researched more. But if we had to draw a line, I would rather do the same for the far left (that would be the umbrella term for the extreme left and radical left) than lump everything on the far right together. Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is an umbrella term for parties, movements and individuals operating on the right flank of the political spectrum. It describes political currents that reject or challenge liberal-democratic norms, and that often consider social inequality or hierarchy as natural or desirable. The term covers both radical-right and extreme-right groups, highlighting that the far-right is a broad category rather than a single ideology.
Radical-right groups participate in democratic processes and formally respect the rules of democracy, but many of their positions conflict with liberal-democratic values. They often emphasize strong nationalism, strict immigration policies or skepticism toward institutions such as courts, media or the European Union. While critical of the system, they aim to influence it from within rather than overthrow it.
Extreme-right groups reject democratic principles outright and may support or condone the use of violence. They oppose pluralism and minority rights, advocating authoritarian, ethnically exclusive or fundamentally anti-democratic solutions. Unlike the radical-right, their goal is often to replace the democratic system rather than work within it.
I think it's OK! But the only thing I wouldn't do is refer to the extreme right as the far right. I would not use any term as a synonym for another term due to possible confusion. Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)16:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think we’re actually quite close to a workable solution if we separate conceptual modeling from term usage in sources.
What I’m proposing is the following hierarchy, which reflects how these concepts are treated in much of the political-science literature and avoids conflating distinct phenomena:
far-right (Q127869500) functions as an umbrella term for political currents on the extreme end of the right-wing spectrum.
right-wing extremism (Q204481) is a subset of the far-right and can be described as:a form of far-right ideology that rejects democratic principles and pluralism, and promotes authoritarian or exclusionary political systems, sometimes including the use of violence.
This allows radical right and extreme / extremist right to remain distinct concepts, rather than being merged via labels or aliases.
This approach avoids using any term as a synonym for another, reduces cross-language confusion, and keeps Wikidata aligned with how these concepts are differentiated in reliable sources.
The only thing I don't quite understand is why some articles linked toradical right(Q21848959) only discuss the radical right in Europe, while other articles discuss the radical right in general. I don't want to be difficult, but shouldn't this be two items?
I'm just thinking, but it might be better to rename all articles about "radical right in ..." to "far-right in ...", so that articles can also be about the extreme right, not just the radical right. If everyone agrees, I'm happy to sort everything out! Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)12:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Neo)fascism and (neo)Nazism can be fall under right-wing extremism, but not all right-wing extremist parties are fascist or Nazi. However, fascist and Nazi parties are right-wing extremist. At least, that's how I understand it. So (neo)fascism and (neo)Nazism could be named underhas part(s)(P527). Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)15:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the proposed structure, but it will require some careful cleanup because a number of interlinked items will need to be realigned. For example, I recently came across a political party with a right-wing political alignment that is currently linked toright-wing extremism, wherefar-right would be more appropriate. I expect there are quite a few cases like this.
Historically,Q204481 was created in 2012 with an English label corresponding tofar-right and a description referring tofar-right politics. Over time (especially around 2018), additional extremist-related labels and aliases were added, and the item gradually morphed into its current, somewhat ambiguous state. Untangling that history is probably unavoidable if we want a clean and durable model.
And one more question: what do we do withQ7280496? Now it has the label "radical right in the United States", but wouldn't it be better to say "far right in the United States"?Perquirius (talk)09:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
As far as I understand the agreement,Q204481 would remain scoped toextreme right / right-wing extremism, whilefar-right functions as the broader umbrella term. In that structure, right-wing extremism is a subset of the far-right, not a synonym for it.
From a practical Wikidata perspective, it would probably make sense to choose the option that involves the least amount of moving of sitelinks and inter-item links, provided it remains conceptually correct. Q204481 has historically accumulated links related to extremism, so keeping it aligned withright-wing extremism may require fewer large-scale changes than redefining it asfar-right. Conceptual clarity should come first, and minimising disruption second.
RegardingQ7280496 andQ138136993, the corresponding English Wikipedia articles areRadical right (United States) andRadical right (Europe). For consistency with the sitelinks, it might be preferable to keep the labelradical right on Wikidata and addfar right as an alias where appropriate, rather than renaming the items outright.
Renaming them tofar right in … could create inconsistency with existing article titles and may also blur the conceptual distinction we’ve just established betweenfar-right (umbrella term) andradical right (a specific current within it).
Of course, I’m open to further thoughts, but aligning with sitelinks while preserving the conceptual distinctions seems the most stable approach.Wikibility (talk)02:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's what I had in mind too. I will post a comment about our reorganization on all talk pages concerning the affected articles! Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)06:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It seems there are misunderstanding about the process.
This discussion began because an item makes appear inconsistency between items.
This discussion makes appear a consensus about the perimeter of items, but nothing about the naming, and logically, it should be consistent in each language with the usual naming.
Since in french,radical right in Europe(Q138136993) designate a political movement named « extrême-droite », I renamed it "extrême droite politique" which literally significates "political extreme-right".
However, @Perquirius cancelled it[7] in french "droite radicale" which is not the usual name.
He made some other renaming in the same direction in french[8] (renaming "delà de la droite politique" without any sense in french) or[9],
I do not understand why @Perquirius decides the designation of items in a language he does not seem to understand.
Hi Lupin, so, if I understand correctly, there is no such thing as the far right or radical right in France? I saw that you had alsochanged the label for radical right in French to "extrême droite politique". If everything to the far right is considered extreme right-wing in France, how is a distinction made between violent, undemocratic groups and nonviolent, democratic groups? Anyway, I'll stay away from it. I noticed that @Fromage604 had undone my changes:[10] and[11]. I'm fine with anything, as long asuiterst rechts remains the umbrella term, encompassingextreemrechts on the one hand andradicaal-rechts on the other. Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)10:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is why I added "politique" to the name in several items like[12],[13],[14].
This "politique" makes the difference between a violent group and a political party. There is a recent reflexion about should "extrême-droite" be renamed to another word, but this reflexion is still in processing, so we should keep the historical name for now.Lupin~fr (talk)14:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
In addition, in France, "droite radicale" is used to name the right wing for historical government parties, where "extrême droite" is used to designate parties which never accessed the government.Lupin~fr (talk)14:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that clarifies things! Thank you for the explanation! It's kind of strange, isn't it, that the word "politique" determines whether or not a group or party is violent? So, in theory, a political party could never be violent? I am curious to see what the outcome of that recent reflection will be! Kind regards,Perquirius (talk)17:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Papiamento)Add a different language Label to a Wikidata Item Wikipedia Above Aruba|Ep. 9 - it's not always obvious how to add labels, descriptions and aliases of different languages to Wikidata items, this short video demonstrates how.
Wiki Clarity Tool: Clarity Tool is a lightweight web application built to empower editors across Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons. It helps contributors identify missing information in articles and suggests structured data from Wikidata to fill those gaps.
Mobile editors can now edit String and External ID datatypes directly in the mobile view. To help improve this new interface, Wikimedia Deutschland is looking for volunteers for UX testing sessions. Participants will be compensated for their time. Sign uphere (greatquestion) and learn more on the project page:Mobile editing of statements
Mobile editing: We are finalizing the support for quantity, monolingual text, mathematical expression and musical notation statements as well as a first version for coordinate statements.
Wikidata integration in the Wikimedia projects: We have continued our investigation into existing Lua modules in order to find more ways in which we can reduce unwanted entries from Wikidata in Recent changes and watchlists on Wikipedia and co. We found a number of options that we are looking into now. (phab:T416822,phab:T416825,phab:T416826,phab:T416827)
Wikidata Vector embedding: We added German to the embedding (next to English, French and Arabic)
There are quite a lot at the top ofthis Petscan list that either I am the only supporter on or it is not clear to me they really are ready, these would benefit from at least one more person looking at them. I can't create them myself at this time.ArthurPSmith (talk)01:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's fair. Is there no-one else who can work on them?
Changes in permissions are not permanent. If you reassure the community you will not use them for personal reasons I don't see why you can't be re-granted them. I'm big on pinky promises.Infrastruktur (talk)14:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I know it's impossible because you can only go one level deep with qualifiers, but are there examples of qualifiers needing qualifiers and Wikidata handling them?
@A diehard editor: I think the only real solution in Wikibase is to have a separate item for the event, in your case the "discovery", then you can have statements on the discovery item that allow such qualifiers.ArthurPSmith (talk)21:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Property talk:P856 gives messy, incomplete, and contradictory advice on how to handle dead/hijacked links. Specifically regarding when a link is defunct but has not been replaced with a newer link (for example, when a company goes out of business). Link-rot is a very, very common issue.
Some have proposed adding 'end date : unknown' as a qualifier. These qualifiers only accept specific dates and reject 'unknown'. (Am I missing something?) Figuring out the exact time/date when a site went down is an unreasonable ask, and it's starting to feel a lot like unnecessaryyak shaving at that point.
Is that what's expected? So how would someone update the info to explain that a site is dead without guessing? More importantly, where is this explained?Grayfell (talk)05:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry I still don't really get how to do this myself. There's an English page for "Tineola bisselliella" (the common clothes moth) which links to a Spanish page of the same name. That's fine.
Ok, thank you! So I think moths (Q56315380) should link to the Spanish page for "Heterocera." And "polilla" should actually be a subclass of "Heterocera." Does that make sense?Slava570 (talk)22:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The solution isn't merging. When it comes to animals, there are taxon's like species (Tineola bisselliella Q1945889), taxons like the suborder (Heterocera Q1725788) and there common names that group animals together that aren't a formal taxon that biologists describe likemoths(Q56315380) orclothes moth(Q25036256). All four are different Wikidata items with different meanings that are not supposed to be merged.
Latest comment:1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The scientific names of living things have to follow the gender rules of Latin, particularly matching the gender of the species part of the name to the genus part. In the case of Yamadazyma mexicanum (Q10723334), the male species doesn't match the female genus, so the name is wrong and should be changed to Yamadazyma mexicana. Google says: "While some database entries or earlier references might have used the variant spelling "Yamadazyma mexicanum", taxonomic authorities and MycoBank recognize Yamadazyma mexicana as the valid binomial name, following the rules of botanical nomenclature where the species epithet usually matches the gender of the genus name." I would like to know whether I should change the name in the existing Q10723334 or create a new Q for the correct spelling.Eastmain (talk)06:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello everyone! I don't know where to post about a problem I've noticed, so I'll leave it here. So, I noticed that Wikidata has the languages меджусловјанскы and medžuslovjansky, but I don't know how to insert them into my babel. Can anyone solve this problem? Or will I have to wait until Interslavic Wikipedia comes out? I just wanted to translate the properties into my languages. Thanks in advance.RiiffTower (talk)08:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
There areisv-cyrl andisv-latn (I found them by looking at what the options are for "isv" in a monolingual text property such asofficial name(P1448), but it looks like they are also available in babel, and in labels and descriptions).Peter James (talk)19:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't like ethnic group as a qualifier. I would have made it an instance of pou, but pou isn't available. Presuming that pou is a type of thing, I'd make pou first, and make your item an instance of pou. Country = New Zealand. Do you have dates, a reference etc?Secretlondon (talk)07:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In Praise of Shadows(Q1368382) is an essay byw:Jun'ichirō Tanizaki first published in 1933. Several English translations have been published over the years (first in 1977, with a paperback reprint 2001; more recently in 2017; and there is an upcoming new translation slated for publication in May of this year). How best should we distinguish between the different publications/translations and the original? Should I make individual items for each book (per each unique ISBN), or is there a preferred method? --Cl3phact0 (talk)15:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks. As far as I can tell, there are four different books (in addition to the original Japanese version), each with a different ISBN. As it is, it seems like we're picking up some data about these various translations in the existing item for the original text. Once I've made the new items, I may need some guidance on how to undo that. --Cl3phact0 (talk)16:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Kickstarter project, Indiegogo Project and GoFundMe campaign
Are we supposed to use donations (P8093) as qualifier instead of total revenue (P2139)? I was told to use P2139 long time ago but now I am starting to get my doubts
