query-7800bb9277c6c70d1ce885f65a010d6b

rq turtle/ttl

I think that just means that the gadget needs to work like Constraint Reports. Adding ]reply[22:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)) talk (Multichill to cover whatever cases you want to find. }}Complex constraint{{. No, this is not useful. I removed the constraint. I suggest you add a (Q9102304)Category:Grote Kerk, Haarlem Always having something is not really a good reason. This is also causing warnings on a large number of items if you have the constraint checking gadget enabled, see for example ]reply[21:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Jura--- : can we still specify this in one way or the other with statements? Ivan_A.Krestinin. It's not entirely clear why it was removed without prior discussion (somewhen last year). There used to be a parameter "|separate category processing=yes" on the template. @Q30260456#P373It's a constraint we always had. It allows to find problematic claims such as ]reply[13:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)) talk (Vojtěch Dostál --As for the "tennis official", it would help if you could add English descriptions to both items so that we can actually see the definitions for each and decide where the commons category is appropriate. so that it does not accumulate in our "import to Wikidata" maintenance category. true" as lokální It seems very reasonable to me to set the unique value constraint but I can't see all the consequences of such a decision and thus cannot really comment on that. We regularly import categories using bots and HarvestTemplates tool. In case we want to have a specific commons category only locally (eg. in cases of imprecise matches to Wikidata definitions), we set the parametr "Jura@ ]reply[13:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Jura--- ). Q47530495: want to comment/support the actual duplicate creation (statement is already on Pasleim, Vojtěch Dostál). Maybe @[1]I'm not sure how that helps identifying duplicates. In the way it's currently set, we have bots and tools adding countless duplicates (e.g. ]reply[13:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)) talk (Jarekt done either on article or category items. --}}Complex constraint{{I am all for "distinct values constraint" P373, but lets I would exclude article / category pairs from this constraint. I my opinion constraint is useless to check if you have 10s or 100s thousands violations and no plans to fix them. I would vote to ]reply[13:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)) talk (Jarekt). That is one of the reasons we have so many constraint violations for P373. --[4] (see user:Yarl/User:Polish Monuments), [3] (see User:Nvitucci), [2] (see user:Alicia_Fagerving(WMSE) Yes I noticed that, some bot operators and other users doing mass-edits, treat P373 like a parent category, instead of equivalent page on Commons. In other words they might add category for a city to every building items in that city, instead of adding categories for each building (if they exist). Some of those edits are very old and maybe the role of P373 was not so clear years ago. Some of the users doing that in last couple years are Jura@ ]reply[15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)) talk (JarektBelow is a query I use to find duplicates. What you get is a list of items with the same P373 category. In each group there is likely one item that is a correct pair for the category and the rest can be removed. --

Use at

PREFIX wikibase: <http://wikiba.se/ontology#>
PREFIX wdt: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/direct/>
PREFIX wd: <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/>
PREFIX bd: <http://www.bigdata.com/rdf#>
SELECT ?itemLabel ?item ?commonscat WHERE { 
  } GROUP BY ?commonscat
       HAVING (COUNT(?item) > 10)
   }    

   ?item wdt:P373 ?commonscat .
   FILTER NOT EXISTS {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q4167836} .    
   FILTER NOT EXISTS {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q13406463} .    
   SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" . }
} ORDER BY DESC(?count) ?commonscat

Query found at