In T377654#10244129, @Aklapper wrote:

please use the feature request form

Oh, apologies. That indeed used to not work. But it is now. It is likely still fine to only list the https one, as the industry standard.

In T364448#10143829, @BTullis wrote:

but maybe this would catch some people unawares.

Ah, thanks to the quick update! I was just writing up a blog post about this Scholia patch, and wanted to show against the three endpoints. For now, I'll use QLever. I'll add the link to the post when done.

They seem to have been taken down. What are they replaced with?

@Andrew, hi, the email replies by Alex seems to get bounced, but he already replied July 19th. Since I received that email, I did not know you had not. Alex wrote: "Yes, it can be deleted. Thank you for asking."

The report linked to a week ago gives a summary of decisions taken, but not a summary of the community feedback. Things what could be clarified in that report which community feedback it does and does not summarize. For example, I have the impression if only refers to feedback from that period, and excludes feedback from earlier (e.g. by me that Scholia will stop to work). And if feedback that was givin within the period but via other channels was included (for example the feedback by Lane). These things are not clear to me, and I understand therefore that also what "resolved" means is unclear (it is to me). So, even if the "resolved" just means "task completed" it is not fully clear to me if it really was completed or just ended. In the last case, "resolved" does not quite capture that for me either. Similarly, "was considered" and "not ignored" can mean a lot of things and says little what was done with the feedback. Some of my concerns are not addressed and then the conclusion to me is then, "yeah, sorry, we know Scholia will break, but it is neccesary". Really, believe me, I can live with that. But let's be clear about that. Only then we can plan action.

Ah, thanks. I was running it on the Wikidata query service. I guess it was just not rolled out there. I really appreciate that this was picked up!

I cannot confirm it working online yet, tho. The following SPARQL should work:

I tried to get the federation working, but got time outs too. The problem is that the current setup makes splits at a statement level. That is, given statements with some property (e.g. P2860 and P1433), some results are in one QS instance and some are in the other. That means a lot of federation-union combinations to get all results. I posted an example query that is affected (the first I tried) in this issue report: https://github.com/WDscholia/scholia/issues/2423

Note that early experiments can be done by federating wdqs with itself, e.g. https://w.wiki/7vE9.

Maybe this context helps. Each Wikidata property has on the Discussion page a link for "Usage history (main statement)". That link gives the above screenshot for P2201.

What context are you missing? Why did you not ask me to add that before marking it as invalid?

This ticket can be closed.

Thanks for the ping! That page was indeed the lead I had at the time and reason to file this issue, because I could not work out (in the time I had) how to update that.

In T307662#7906276, @EgonWillighagen wrote:

I will write up some examples later today using the "bug" template, to highlight some issues.

List of steps to reproduce (step by step, including full links if applicable):

• got to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q26075#P233
• click the link (formatter URL) for the canonical SMILES C#N
• notice the SVG shows CH4 instead of C#N

In T307662#7906210, @TheDJ wrote:

This is a url encoding problem then. Do you have a link where this is actually occurring ?

In T307662#7906232, @TheDJ wrote:

Math-Chemistry-Support is a project specifically about defining these symbols using our Math/LateX wikicode extension.

In T307662#7906222, @TheDJ wrote:

This is essentially: T160281

@TheDJ, that Math-Chemistry-Support is not (also) about chemistry?

In T307662#7906150, @Aklapper wrote:

Hi @EgonWillighagen, thanks for taking the time to report this. Is this a bug report or a feature request? If it's either of them, could you please use the corresponding template? Thanks! :)

1,939,738 authors -> https://w.wiki/3o2i

@AKhatun_WMF, when you write "authors connected to other subgraphs", do you mean subgraphs within Wikidata (so, excluding external identifiers), or also graphs from other resources part of, for example, the Linked Open Data Cloud?

In T281854#7185253, @Multichill wrote:

No it's not, please have a look at the task description. This is about getting metrics.

Regarding the question of the "growth of scientific literature", there is a good bit of literature on this, and sometimes conflated with the topic of "growth of science". I started collecting some knowledge about this: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q107292942

I am with @Harej here. Focusing on the largest data set is not the right approach. As I have indicated in similar discussions elsewhere, there will be a next large subset and this one will also be large. From the field chemistry, 60M items is nothing. The number of species every observed is millions. There are many things that easily go into the millions. At this moment, we have a small subset of chemicals in Wikidata (~1.2 million), because of the growing pains this is artificially low (real chemical databases have >102 M records of chemicals experimentally studied). I regularly run into missing content (even just looking at the English Wikipedia), and am very selective in what i add at this moment.

Two pull requests from my side for past bugs.

I created a pull request: https://github.com/wikimedia/wikidata-query-deploy/pull/1

Yes, in the end we want data for all chemicals, but this is a good tradeoff. I'll implement! Thanks!

I'm running into this problem too. Queries are slow or even time out for chemicals. The hints to do not seem to improve the query time significantly:

In T193728#4212862, @Rspeer wrote:

how to change Wikidata's copyright status.

LIBER Europe had an interesting webinar yesterday [0], tho aimed at academic research (so, only covering living scholar, for example). There are many aspects, but I feel this should indeed be covered at a WMF level. One aspect that makes Wiki${Foo} special is that it covered two types of personal information: the user accounts on one side, and personal information as data on the other side.

@Fnielsen, we could add the JavaScript to run the queries in a way that it only runs when the <div> is visible... e.g. with something like this: https://github.com/shaunbowe/jquery.visibilityChanged

Hi all, IANAL but have been professionally dealing with copyright for quite some time now (scholar, author, database creator, advisor, etc, etc).

In T193728#4189219, @Psychoslave wrote:

Let's recall that whether this transfer is done by automation or crowdsourcing doesn't matter, it's the quantity of transferred data

I am not sure how much we should worry about the exact percentages for PubChem; to me, more important is are the percentages of the chemistry we have in Wikidata. These are likely correlated, and since PubChem is a lot bigger puts things in perspective. InChIs are identifiers, but not as we are common too, and I understand the point about indexing and ID length.

The InChI is not the only use case for chemistry, btw. SMILES also runs into the char limit right now for a number of compounds.