[00:07:10] nikki, hi, were you able to figure it out? [13:51:50] heya. I'm wondering how to model an item having multiple different employees. I'm thinking of a university which has administrative staff, academic staff, and professors. A bit like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30163575. But that one doesn't validate, because units seem to be not allowed for "Employees" (P1128). Any hints? [14:04:55] muelli: hmmm, maybe https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P2670 with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1114 as qualifier? [14:05:30] uh. hm. I'm quite new to everything Semantic, SPARQL, and all. Let me try to read and comprehend. [14:10:52] hm. sjoerddebruin. I don't think I understand very well. How do you think that is going to be applied? Like in the university's "employees" Property? [14:11:14] As a separate statement, you can't qualify qualifiers. [14:16:21] sjoerddebruin: ah. So no "employees" properties involved at all? [14:16:37] Probably. I can't think of another solution. [14:16:41] As positions are not really units. [14:17:07] hm. [14:17:30] The employee property does allow https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P518, but that can be pretty confusing for queries. [14:18:03] You can do that, but you need to prefer the total number then. [14:22:05] hm. seems more complicated than I thought. [14:37:47] but I think I spontaneously like the "has part of" solution. Although it makes me wonder why we shouldn't also encode things like "employees" or "students count" in that way. [14:38:37] Yeah, that is some ongoing discussion. [14:42:11] meh... this reason for deprecation property is annoying [14:43:30] it feel so wrong making an item for something which is actually just a piece of free text (so I don't) and then I looked to see if there are any existing values and mostly found either useless stuff like "error" or things which shouldn't even be marked as deprecated [14:43:58] and even if I could find an item to use, it feels wrong using a qualifier but also seems weird as a reference >_< [14:45:55] would be nice if we had some other thing separate from references for things like that... [14:48:25] I see sjoerddebruin. So yeah, maybe I go with the "has part of" approach, although it's very generic and makes queries feel weird to me. [14:51:27] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19610960 seems to be a duplicate of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q284992. The former seems to come from the Turkish Wikipedia. Is fixing up the Turkish article and deleting the stray item the right thing� or rather mark it as duplicate? Or just request its deletion? [15:02:24] we merge items rather than deleting them (we don't reuse ids anyway), there's a gadget you can enable in the preferences [15:06:40] yeah, I got that. But I'm confused about what is the preferred thing to do in this very case, because the item seems to have accidentally come from the Turkish Wikipedia and seems to be only referenced there. So the item shouldn't have existed in first place and nobody has made use of it. I wonder what the value of that stray item is then. [15:10:26] there's no way of knowing if anyone has made use of the item, our data is available to lots of people and if someone has that id and wants to look it up, if it's a duplicate of another id, they should be redirected to the right id [15:11:21] ah. that makes sense, I guess. [15:11:37] which is what happens when you do a merge - the information is moved to the target item and then a redirect is created [15:25:22] Is there a way to link a statement to another statement (or qualifier) ? e.g. "start time" = "manufactured by":"point in time" [15:30:16] also, I found many weird items from https://ceb.wikipedia.org e.g. Q35326147 which is a dup of Q54166 :-/ Is it possible to list a few wikidata items coming from there to have a closer look? [15:32:07] Q35327198 is another weirdo from ceb. [15:32:35] there are lots of duplicates from cebwiki, unfortunately :/ there's a bot creating there [15:32:49] hrm. [15:32:53] creating articles there, I mean [15:35:20] so the bot is causing more human work than it tried to save ;-) [15:37:58] well, the original bot is doing what it intended to, which is to create content in cebuano [15:38:48] the person running the bot doesn't seem very interested in wikidata, so other people have had to do that part [15:39:21] and it's difficult to determine automatically whether two things are really the same, so that meant creating duplicates [15:39:29] the whole thing has been rather frustrating >_< [18:04:53] Anyone know why sometimes the qualifier and reference key fields are pre-filled with choices and sometimes they're not? [18:17:16] the property suggester uses the existing properties on the item to suggest others which might be appropriate, so it depends on what's already there [18:17:53] there's also a bug where it uses the suggestions for new statements for qualifiers (maybe also references?) while adding a statement [18:56:06] nikki: the last part has been "fixed" for a few weeks now [18:56:38] oh, it doesn't show anything now? [18:57:14] I'm so used to saving the statement and editing it when I want to add qualifiers and references that I hadn't noticed anything had changed [18:58:24] Same, same. [20:06:45] nikki: What I'm finding is that the property suggester works as I might expect it to (though I'm not clear on how it chooses what to suggest). But when i go to add a reference the "reference property suggester"(?) only works some of the time. [20:07:19] Because it depends per property. [20:07:44] e.g. I expect it would suggest "stated in" and maybe "pages", but usually it has no suggestions at all. [20:11:01] Yeah, I suggested at least a default list of suggestions (just like the empty state of an item) ages ago. [20:11:40] That's the weird thing though, it only *usually* has no suggestions. Sometimes it does give me suggestions [20:12:05] (stated in, reference URL, retrieved, publication date) [20:13:33] Ah, it seems to depend if I am entering the reference at the same time as the statement. [20:13:54] If I try to enter them at the same time: no suggestions. If I save then 'add reference' it gives me suggestions. [20:15:40] Oh yeah, that's the same problem that Nikki described. [20:18:28] So basically it's not seeing the unsaved/new statement when it tries to load options for qualifiers/references? [20:29:09] hawke: that should not be the case, please file a bug report [20:29:33] hoo, if you are around --^ [20:34:07] Is this https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T102324 ? [21:11:57] hoo: yes [21:12:05] Since june 2015. [21:19:53] * hoo sighs [21:20:04] If I can, I'll put it on my table [21:29:23] There is no Wikimedia activity in real life that I didn't whisper "entity suggester" directly in your ears. [22:45:52] SMalyshev: scoring looks almost perfect now :) [22:57:19] hola, algun bibliotecario que hable español para ayudarme con una consulta? [22:58:52] hola, algun bibliotecario que hable español para ayudarme con una consulta? [22:59:37] lol, 30 accounts like the tweet I sent ten seconds ago [22:59:51] do I have the energy to report them all, is the question