User talk:ChristianKl

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:ChristianKl/Structured Discussions Archive 1 on 2023-11-30.

Welcome to Wikidata, ChristianKl!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

connects with (P2789)

I see you have removed the constraints from this property. So, now we have no error reports for this. This is probably not such a good idea. Danrok (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed them after having a discussion at the project chat about widening the scope so that the property can be used with any physical entity that connects to another physical entity. That means that the old constraints aren't relevant anymore. How do you think the new constraint should look like? ChristianKl (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Property proposals

Hi ChristianKl. Today I found a few old property proposals that weren't transcluded in one of the pages at Wikidata:Property proposal, including several of yours (e.g. Wikidata:Property proposal/what3words address). It's unlikely people will comment on them if they are not transcluded. You might want to double check these and withdraw the ones that are no longer needed. --- Jura 08:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I made them before fully understanding how the process works. ChristianKl (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

NP. In the meantime, the template attempts to generate an error message if the proposal isn't transcluded.
--- Jura 09:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the WQT UI requirements elicitation online workshop

Dear ChristianKl,

I hope you are doing well,

We are a group of researchers from King’s College London working on developing WQT (Wikidata Quality Toolkit), which will support a diverse set of editors in curating and validating Wikidata content.

We are inviting you to participate in an online workshop aimed at understanding the requirements for designing effective and easy-to-use user interfaces (UI) for three tools within WQT that can support the daily activities of Wikidata editors: recommending items to edit based on their personal preferences, finding items that need better references, and generating entity schemas automatically for better item quality.

The main activity during this workshop will be UI mockup sketching. To facilitate this, we encourage you to attend the workshop using a tablet or laptop with PowerPoint installed or any other drawing tools you prefer. This will allow for a more interactive and productive session as we delve into the UI mockup sketching activities.

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. However, your cooperation will be valuable for the WQT design. Please note that all data and responses collected during the workshop will be used solely for the purpose of improving the WQT and understanding editor requirements. We will analyze the results in an anonymized form, ensuring your privacy is protected. Personal information will be kept confidential and will be deleted once it has served its purpose in this research.

The online workshop, which will be held on April 5th, should take no more than 3 hours.

If you agree to participate in this workshop, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form to register your interest https://forms.office.com/e/9mrE8rXZVg Then, I will contact you with all the instructions for the workshop.

For more information about my project, please read this page: https://king-s-knowledge-graph-lab.github.io/WikidataQualityToolkit/

If you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me at the email address mentioned above.

Thank you for considering taking part in this project.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

New property for deletion

Hello, I wanted to inform you that I've just nominated for deletion the property:P3717 that you created.

P.S. I'm contacting you here because in the top banner you're not providing any link for the "current talk page". Horcrux (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Film Museum (Q1922726)

Hello,

I'm sorry, I don't speak German or English (I use an automatic translation tool). You have blocked this version: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1922726&diff=prev&oldid=2158802068

However, my modification was not "vandalism". I have explained it several times on the discussion page here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q1922726

Consequently, I do not understand your intervention. Do you have an explanation?

Thanks in advance 94.109.103.157 11:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't make a judgement on the content. Edit-warring is not a way to solve disputes, so I see no need for you to edit the page directly. If you want to discuss with another editor on the page, it makes sense to ping them so that they see the message.

Registering an account is also generally helpful when it comes to have debates about content. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It was your friend who introduced the error and repeats it every time I correct it.

The problem is that you are polluting the French version with text that is not correct, whether in its meaning or its respect for the French language. --94.108.15.76 14:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Moreover " l'ancien musée du cinéma de Bruxelles fusionne avec CINEMATEK" in French it doesn't mean anything! The Cinematheque established the Cinema Museum in 1962. In 2009, the Cinematheque decided to use the brand "Cinematek", but there was no change.

Possible mistake?

I think when you wrote "The main reason against it being used as a qualifier" here, you may have mean to say "The main reason against it being used as a main statement property", or equivalently, "The main reason for it being used solely as a qualifier". Cheers. Swpb (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I corrected it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Request

Hello ChristianKl: I am making this request because I don't know which is the corresponding sector, I am not familiar with the boards. But I wanted to ask if you can delete my user page, so that it can be automatically linked to my global user page from Meta Wiki. Best regards. —Aopou {discusión} 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research exploring Wikidata editors' experience of content gaps

Dear ChristianKl,

I hope this message finds you well!

We are researchers at King's College London investigating how content gaps arise and can be measured in Wikidata. Currently we have explored existing research papers to identify several categories of gaps. However, we have noted a lack of consideration of editors’ experiences in this existing research and are keen to hear about editors’ views on and methods for identifying and addressing content gaps. While this topic has seen a lot of attention in Wikipedia, we believe Wikidata presents unique challenges and content which warrant further investigation.

We are reaching out as we understand you have previously taken part in a research study with our colleague Kholoud and thought as an active and experienced editor, you may be able to share your experiences with us. We would therefore like to invite you to participate in an interactive online workshop to explore this topic further.

This will consist of a 90 minute online call consisting of a group discussion and collaborative editing of a document (in Miro). We will ask you to rank gaps according to your familiarity and your opinion of their importance, give feedback on which types of metric might be most valuable to you as an editor and give some initial thoughts and potentially even sketches of how a content gap monitoring tool might look for Wikidata.

The main goal of the workshop is to understand your perspectives on how to measure and monitor content gaps as well as potentially identify further metrics or even to propose new methods to identify and quantify gaps in Wikidata.

Participation is completely voluntary. All personal data will be kept confidential in compliance with GDPR. If you are interest in taking part, you can find out more about the workshop from our participant information sheet. You can also read more about the research at our meta page.

You can sign-up to take part from our registration form.

The workshop will take place online using Microsoft Teams. We are hoping to host the workshop in the coming weeks, but if you would like to take part and are unavailable during the proposed times, we may be able to find an alternative time.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at anelia.kurteva@kcl.ac.uk and neal.t.reeves@kcl.ac.uk

Thank you for considering taking part in this workshop and supporting our research.

With kind regards, Celestialtoast (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

QS batch 238496

This batch has a lot of errors, and consequently, a lot of the edited items have warnings. I'm no expert, but I think you're using the constraint wrong. I think you should qualify with P5314, not with the identifier property itself. Are you planning to fix this? bdijkstra (overleg) 07:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The batch is indeed wrong and I already tried to undo the batch. The problem is that the undo batch feature seems broken at the moment. I reported that at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Edit_groups#Server_Error_(500) and will undo the batch when the undo functionality works again. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That could take a while. I think Wikidata would be better off if you repaired the batch another way. bdijkstra (overleg) 18:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bdijkstra I did wait for Pintoch to repair it and now it's repaired and I undid the batch. The result is that now, not only the badge is undone but EditGroups works again which is the better result for Wikidata overall than if I would just have fixed the batch manually.

It's frequently the case on Wikidata that the most useful way to fix a problem requires going up a level and coordinating with other people. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed that's better overall. Thanks! bdijkstra (overleg) 11:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if you've seen my pings...

Wikidata:Property proposal/most populous settlement. Swpb (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for my late answer. I wrote my support for the current version in that post and set it to ready. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Swpb (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Not working correctly

Hi ChristianKl. The pattern https://www.the-sports.org/t-spf in this property [1] is not currently working, see for example [2].

Can you check and fix it please? Thanks. Leonprimer (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Leonprimer I don't know enough about the website to fix it. Maybe, bring up the issue in the Project Chat? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Confusing

You have "This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page." at top of this page - is it intentional? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You are right, that shouldn't be there. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you get to look at the proposal?

Did you get to read the propoal?

I want to try to turn the tide on the way I was editing so I do not want to do it unless I get more confirmation. But I do think that it will be a good thing to be done and am a bit concerned about how things have been going for me here. Immanuelle (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Asking a question like that without providing a link to the proposal you are speaking about mean that I don't have an easy way to answer your question. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry User:Immanuelle/shrine_proposal Immanuelle (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle

(1) I don't think you should add sources to JaWiki without checking whether JaWiki actually makes the claim for which you want to cite it. The script should check the numbers and use retrieved (P813)/imported from Wikimedia project (P143)

(2) It's not clear to me what source / reasoning you use for it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah my proposal would be to write a small script that checks it against the categorization on jawiki and adds as a source like that if it is the case. Almost all of the properties come from jawiki that way, I would just want to confirm this since after that import some people did their own editing, and I learned some of the information I imported already came from an LTA on jawiki https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E9%80%B2%E8%A1%8C%E4%B8%AD%E3%81%AE%E8%8D%92%E3%82%89%E3%81%97%E8%A1%8C%E7%82%BA/%E9%95%B7%E6%9C%9F/Sorrysorry

What numbers do you mean that it would check with the script?

Technically the information is incomplete with the categorization since sometimes ranks changed but all of the ranks that the categorization uses are the ones on Jan 1 1946, so earlier ones can be added later with different end dates Immanuelle (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is not how it should be done. Categorization on jawiki is not something that tells you that the jawiki article actually supports what you are claiming even if you remember that you used the information for editing Wikidata in the first place. Both Wikidata and jawiki might have been changed since then.

That's not an answer that contains a source. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case I will manually add sources instead of this. But citing the article is fine right? No need to always use the cited source in the article? Immanuelle (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The key principle here is not to use reference URL (P854) or stated in (P248) when using Wikimedia projects as source but imported from Wikimedia project (P143)/Wikimedia import URL (P4656). This allows Wikimedia projects that don't want to display claims without sources and who think that Wikimedia projects are no valid sources to filter out the claim. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

RE: Q136703204

Sorry, I intended to delete the other related items but got distracted. I looked at them again and maybe they should go as a bulk request to RFD instead of outright deleting them? Ternera (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think both are reasonable ways forward. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You may be an eligible candidate for the U4C election

Greetings,

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) seeks candidates for the 2026 election. The U4C is the global committee responsible for overseeing enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct. Elections are held annually, if elected a committee member serves for two years.

This year the U4C requires candidates to hold administrator rights on at least one wiki, which is why you are being contacted as you appear to hold this right. There are other requirements, such as candidates must be at least 18 years old and may not be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation or other related chapters and affiliates. You can find more information in the call for candidates on Meta-wiki. Additionally, the committee's working language is English; some ability to communicate in English is required.

The election opens on 18 May, if you are eligible and interested you have until 10 May to submit your candidacy. There will be a week in between for candidates to answer questions from the community. Voting takes place privately in SecurePoll, successful candidates must receive at least 60% support. More information is available on the 2026 Elections page, including timelines and other candidacy information. If you read over the material and consider yourself qualified, please consider submitting your name to run for the committee. If you think someone else in your community might be interested and qualified, please encourage them to run.

In partnership with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Question about Wikidata modeling

Hi Christian,

I’m Brian Hatten, an orthopedic surgeon working on knee replacement modeling in Wikidata User:Orthodoc10. I’ve been following your work on property discussions and ontology questions, and I’d value your perspective on something I’ve been thinking through.

My question is about Property:P1343 (described by source) when modeling complex clinical concepts. For a topic like a surgical technique, the foundational literature isn’t usually one paper. It’s typically layers of research: original technique descriptions, key outcomes studies, and literature defining the techniques within their broader category. Each captures a different facet of the concept.

I’ve been adding multiple P1343 statements on these items to reflect that concept, but I want to make sure I’m using the property correctly rather than reaching for it where something else (such a cited work, P2860) would be more appropriate.

Two examples of the current modeling: • Q138049485 (Approach techniques in knee replacement) — parent item

• Q137917642 (Subvastus approach) — child item

Does this look like the correct use of P1343, or would you model it differently? I’m asking now because I’m planning to extend similar modeling to robotics, implants, and fixation techniques, and I’d rather get the pattern right before scaling it.

Thanks for any thoughts you can share.

Brian Orthodoc10 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey Brian @Orthodoc10, it's great to see you wanting to add items for those surgical techniques.

described by source (P1343) is right. cites work (P2860) is for relationships between works where one paper cites another and not for the relationship between a technique and the work that discusses it.

In general I think subclass/superclass relationship make more sense then meronym/holonym relationships, so I would have rather a "surgical knee replacement technique" item that's a subclass of "surgical technique" and then subclass it, then have an item for a group like approach technique in knee replacement (Q138049485).

Given that you use anatomical location (P927) for the point of incision when the operation is probably not just about that part, qualifying anatomical location (P927) with object of statement has role (P3831) "point of incision" (or something similar, I haven't searched for what existing items would best fit here) might help to make the claim more clear.

If you do use significant person (P3342) it would make sense use object of statement has role (P3831) for the relationship but if those are the people that created the technique discoverer or inventor (P61) is the more straightforward property.

Generally, object of statement has role (P3831) is very helpful if there are existing very broad properties but you could make a more specific claim. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:

Hi Christian,

Thank you for taking the time to look through the work and offer such thoughtful feedback. I went and read through Help:Basic membership properties and the property talk pages for object of statement has role (P3831) and significant person (P3342) to make sure I understood the conventions before acting on your suggestions.

On described by source (P1343) versus cites work (P2860), thank you for confirming. I'll keep the described by source approach.

On the anatomical location point, your suggestion to qualify anatomical location (P927) with object of statement has role (P3831) is a real precision improvement. I've added the qualifier with the value Q1671866 (surgical incision) across the anatomical location statements in the ecosphere. Pointing to the incision specifically rather than letting anatomical location (P927) carry an unqualified value makes the claim much clearer about what the relationship is actually describing.

On the significant person question, this is one I've genuinely wrestled with as I built out the historical attribution across these techniques. The kinematic alignment page (Q137897095) and its significant person statement for Q43186351 (Stephen Howell) is a good window into the deliberation. Looking back through the edit history, I worked through founder (P112), creator (P170), developer (P178), and considered discoverer or inventor (P61) before settling on significant person (P3342). Each of those felt either too narrow or too definitive for surgical attribution, where contributions are typically layered across multiple individuals over time. The subvastus approach (Q137917642) is a good example of why this matters. The page lists two significant persons because Erkes described the technique in 1929, but Q137910858 (Aaron A. Hofmann) reintroduced and modernized it for TKA in 1991. Calling either of them the "inventor" misrepresents the history. significant person (P3342) felt like the most honest claim I could make, but you're right that without a qualifier it's vague.

Your suggestion to qualify it with object of statement has role (P3831) solved exactly the problem I'd been working around. I've now added the qualifier with the value Q937283 (pioneer) across the significant person (P3342) statements in the ecosphere. The definition of pioneer, "person who is among the first to enter a new area or field," captures the substance of these contributions accurately without overclaiming originator status. I'll continue to use this pattern as I add new historical figures, and I'll consider object of statement has role (P3831) more broadly as a precision tool wherever I have a significant person (P3342) statement that would benefit from clarification.

On the structural question about subclass versus part-whole relationships, I wanted to walk you through what I've done and check that it matches your intent before going further. I created a new item, Q139682277 (surgical techniques in knee replacement), with subclass of (P279) surgical technique and facet of (P1269) knee replacement. I then changed the subclass of (P279) target on the two existing parent items, Q138049485 (approach techniques in knee replacement) and Q138042721 (alignment techniques in knee replacement), so they're now subclasses of the new Q139682277 (surgical techniques in knee replacement) rather than direct subclasses of surgical technique. I named the new item with the parallel plural form to maintain consistency with the two existing parent labels, though I recognize this differs slightly from the singular form you suggested.

This gives the hierarchy a properly nested taxonomic structure: surgical technique to Q139682277 (surgical techniques in knee replacement) to Q138049485 (approach techniques in knee replacement) and Q138042721 (alignment techniques in knee replacement) to individual approaches and alignments. The intermediate class node addresses the placement of the top-level groupings within the broader surgical technique taxonomy.

For the cleaner subclass hierarchy on the children, here is the pattern I would apply, using Q138032075 (mechanical alignment in knee replacement) as the worked example. The page currently carries subclass of (P279) surgical technique and part of (P361) Q138042721 (alignment techniques in knee replacement). I would change it to carry only subclass of (P279) Q138042721 (alignment techniques in knee replacement), removing both the direct subclass of (P279) to surgical technique and the part of (P361) statement. The connection to surgical technique would be preserved transitively through the parent class. References currently attached to the subclass of (P279) surgical technique statement would be moved to the new subclass of (P279) parent statement to preserve the sourcing. The same pattern would apply to the other three alignment items (Q137897095 kinematic alignment, Q138042557 functional alignment, and Q139059878 inverse kinematic alignment) and the four approach items (Q137917642 subvastus, Q138049383 midvastus, Q138042843 medial parapatellar, and Q138640611 lateral).

A related question on the parent items themselves. Q138049485 (approach techniques in knee replacement) and Q138042721 (alignment techniques in knee replacement) currently use has part(s) (P527) to enumerate their children. I added these enumerations deliberately because the parent pages serve as discoverability surfaces. Clinicians, search engines, and other tools landing on these pages benefit from seeing the specific techniques that fall under the category right there on the page, rather than needing to query for subclasses. I looked at whether has part(s) of the class (P2670) would be a better fit for downward enumeration on class items, but the documentation suggests it's intended for instance subjects and may conflict with the subclass of (P279) statements already on the parents. The "superclass of" inverse label (Q66088480) is a metadata item rather than a usable property. The help documentation does permit has part(s) (P527) for class-to-class relationships, but I recognize that's the vocabulary you flagged as inappropriate for taxonomic structures. Is there a way to preserve the enumeration on the parent pages while addressing the modeling concern, or do you think the children's subclass of (P279) statements alone are sufficient to make these techniques discoverable from the parent context?

Thanks again for engaging so substantively with this. The framing of object of statement has role (P3831) as a precision lever for broad properties is genuinely useful, and the structural suggestion are very helpful for taxonomic placement going forward.

Brian Orthodoc10 (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that use of object of statement has role (P3831) looks great.

I also understand the desire to make the relationship visible in both directions. The difficulty is that Wikidata currently does not have a “superclass of” property as the inverse of subclass of (P279), and using has part(s) (P527) for that purpose would blur the ontology. has part(s) (P527) is a part-whole relation, while these items are better modeled as narrower kinds of the parent class.

For discovery, the RelatedItems gadget helps with this. It adds a button at the bottom of item pages that can show inverse relationships, including incoming subclass statements. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:

Thanks again for the guidance and the RelatedItems gadget recommendation. I've now completed the cleanup across the ecosphere. The has part(s) (P527) statements have been removed from both Q138049485 (approach techniques in knee replacement) and Q138042721 (alignment techniques in knee replacement), as well as from Q1693864 (knee replacement). The eight individual approach and alignment items now use subclass of (P279) pointing to their immediate parent class, with the part of (P361) statements removed and references migrated. The RelatedItems gadget renders the inverse relationships nicely on the parent pages, so the discoverability concern resolved itself through the rendering layer as you suggested.

I really appreciate the time and care you've put into this feedback. Your patience in walking through the modeling questions has helped my thinking about how to approach these relationships going forward. Thanks again!

Brian Orthodoc10 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Losing adminship

Hi, ChristianKl, I have removed your admin flag due to inactivity. Inactivity is defined as less than five administrator actions or property creations over a six-month period. Your last admin action dates from Nov 11th, 2025. Thank you for your service! --Lymantria (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for advice on procedural question

Hi ChristianKl,

Thank you again for previous help on my Wikidata modeling. I’ve been working on some other pages and it’s been really nice to know the structure is sound.

If you don’t mind, I wanted to ask you a Wikidata procedural question that is unrelated to the knee replacement work you helped me with.

I filed an undelete request which was ultimately archived prior to an admin reviewing it for notability. I’m under the impression that archiving the request means that it would not be reviewed.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2026/06#Undeletion_request:_My_Knee_Guide_(Q137802070)

I was wondering if you had any suggestions on a sensible next step? I appreciate your time.

Thanks so much

Brian

~~~~ Orthodoc10 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the next step from your end. Unfortunately, I don't have my admin rights anymore to deal with it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your time. Orthodoc10 (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I do have an unrelated question. I added the “show derived statements” that we previously discussed. I’ve found that the gadget works well to identify subclasses. However, there’s limited information on “main subject” derived statements. Sometimes one the main subjects may be shown, or non at all. Is this just a limitation of the gadget? I tried to look it up, but didn’t see anything. If you don’t know, it’s not a big deal. If not, maybe you would know who I could ask?

Brian Orthodoc10 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. The gadget seems to be created by Pasleim, so asking him is probably your best bet to get it fixed. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 05:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I got it figured out. It’s because of the graph split between scholarly articles and the main section. There’s a straight foward fix that queries both graphs, with some added lag time on loading.

I added an update about this fix to the talk page on relateditems. Orthodoc10 (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)