Thanks! Now that all states have county data, I am closing this task. Thank you!

Found a source for Kentucky. Nevada is still missing.

Had to remove Nevada and Kentucky. The data source was NC and thus incompatible with Wikipedia.

I think all states are done now. Now to figure out how to keep this current.

New Hampshire was already done by User:Joeykai - Thanks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_New_Hampshire

Thank you @Aklapper

In Chrome. But it does not happen on the first gloss (since Remove is grayed out on the first gloss), only on the second and other additional glosses.

Oh, wow, it also happens for Lexeme:thanks

I tried Lucas suggestion, and it solves the reason for the bug. When there are two actions, it still works fine (but their relative positioning of the action icons changes slightly - they squeeze together).

That looks neat. I would merge the lemma with the ID in one line.

"what are the benefit for the Wikimedia community of using exclusively CC-0 for its single Wikibase instance usable in the rest of its environment?"

@Mateusz_Konieczny I like R-OSM-1 too. I would go now for these two questions.

My previous suggestion to @Psychoslave was
P) "Can you comment on the practise of extracting data from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and storing the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?"

@MisterSynergy yes, I agree, it would seriously weaken Wikidata. Nevertheless it is good to resolve legal uncertainties as far as reasonable.

@Micru I agree with @Cirdan that this would be a rather worrying way to deal with the situation. Also, as @Nemo_bis points out, it really couldn't be just the communities doing so. In my understanding, it would need an update to the CC license itself, which would need to be done by CC, and then have the license be adopted by the Foundation together with the community, and this only works due to the or-later-clause. But as said, I would be rather troubled by such an approach.

@Rspeer Back before Wikidata, If I linked an article from the German Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia by adding an interwiki link on the German Wikipedia, and then an interwiki bot makes this link be reciprocal by adding the interwiki link on the English Wikipedia, there is no attribution to me on the English Wikipedia to my edit. The page editing history on the English Wikipedia will not have any attribution to me. There is no link at all to my edit on the German Wikipedia that would fulfill the attribution requirement.

I was reading the article you linked to - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he#Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he_seit_2013 - and nothing there lets me believe that the list of Interwikilinks would have sufficient "Schöpfungshöhe".

Copyright has to be about some concrete expression.

@Nemo_bis : good point. I wouldn't know what a good example is, though, maybe someone else can come up with something.

@Rspeer regarding the ontology: the ontology of Wikidata is genuinely unique and not copied from any Wikipedia project, or any other project. It has been created on Wikidata.

@Nemo_bis thanks, I agree with your point a lot.

@Psychoslave sorry to disagree on the questions, but are we in any disagreement on these three questions?

@Gnom1 - yes, anything that you can contribute would be awesome.

Re Psychoslave:

Re Pintoch:

The property is about adding the RNSR ID. That's fine.

I don't know the Open License. Given what I understand using automatic translation, the license requires attribution.

@Psychoslave, I am not sure I entirely follow.

You state that "there are contributors of Wikidata that do make massive imports of external data banks, regardless of the corresponding terms of use."

Since the top line is not directly editable anymore anyway, also an option could be to set the Label in big letters in the top, description next to it (not under it), and the aliases below. This should also be pleasing aesthetically, and keeping the semantic unity of label+description.

I am quite strongly against splitting the label and description by the aliases. The label and description together establish the identity of the item, whereas the aliases (which is indeed a bad term) are used to facilitate finding the item. No further meaning should be associated with these things.

But maybe name it "More", "Even more", "All" ;)

No, /entity/Q23 is not the description, indeed, it is the item.

/entity/Q23 rdf:type wikibase:Item .