Wikidata talk:WikiProject Olympics
Organize items of Olympic Games, disciplines, and events edit
General discussion edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Olympics
Do we have an established idea how to organize Olympic games, disciplines, and events? If so, please let me know, otherwise I would offer to make a suggestion this evening or this weekend, based on my experience so far in the olympic sport of rowing. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think, we'll need some example items for each type. See my example basketball at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q17759500) (have done almost the same thing for other "[sport] at the 2016 OG" pages). --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see your work! I think we need to sort the situation about “olympic disciplines” (Olympic sport (Q212434)?) and Olympic sporting event (Q18536594) now. The disciplines are part of the games, and the events are part of the disciplines (medals are given per event), so both are to be connected by has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361) which is already the case to some extent; sometimes disciplines are grouped, as for instance aquatics include swimming, diving, synchronized swimming and water polo (what to do?). I think it would also be useful to consider “class type” items like rowing at the Summer Olympics (Q720609) (for disciplines) and something similar on event level (not yet created for rowing), which can connect to Summer Olympic Games (Q159821) via part of/has part as well.
- Should we provide some SPARQL links to provide easy overview? This might be useful to find all items. There is probably a lot of work to do for all editions of the Summer Games… —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes about SPARQL. About clasification - will probably give a comment tommorow. And yes - there is a lot of work. I'll not even try to do everything till OG (and during Games), it's impossible. Want to see some Olympics, too :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- About aquatics. Personally, I haven't understand, why we include all 4 sports under aquatics, in my Wikipedia work I have always ignored that, but OK, that's POV. We could link them with the same "part of"/"has part" properties. And continue to do the same with other events/disciplines. For example, "Men's 100 m" "is part of" "Athletics @2016 OG" (and vice versa) <- I'm waiting till artilces are created at enwiki to do that, so I don't create mess. "Athletics @2016 OG" "subclass" "Athletics @OG" <- if nobody disagress, will do that today or tommorow. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes about SPARQL. About clasification - will probably give a comment tommorow. And yes - there is a lot of work. I'll not even try to do everything till OG (and during Games), it's impossible. Want to see some Olympics, too :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you that discipline groups such as “Aquatics” are not so important here, we can just deal with the grouped disciplines the same as with any other (non-grouped) discipline (such as basketball, rowing, all the others).
- On event level we probably have to merge a lot (my experience from those rowing items), but as soon as we find suitable items we can probably start to relate them. Nothing gets lots upon later mergers…
- On the distiction between disciplines and events: instances of events should have instance of (P31)Olympic sporting event (Q18536594), but what about instances of disciplines? You have added instance of (P31)Olympic sporting event (Q18536594) to those as well, but I am not sure whether this is technically correct. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- So you're saying, that we can do: "Swimming @Rio" is part of "Rio" (Rio = Rio Olympics), not "Swimming @Rio" is part of "Aquatics @Rio"? I'm worring about merge stuff on sportsperson level... That will probably be s*. I agree about events/disciplines - not good action of mine :) I just continued to do, what was done till me. If you have an idea for a better statement, say. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- We can have
swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics – men's 50 metre freestyle (Q25863624) <part of> swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8022145) <part of> 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8613)(status quo) orswimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics – men's 50 metre freestyle (Q25863624) <part of> swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8022145) <part of> “Aquatics at the 2016 Summer Olympics” <part of> 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8613). I don’t see an advantage of the latter option, but there might be one (I really have no preference, so if someone knows better let me know). The former version however is suitable for all events and disciplines. Regarding the event/discipline tagging: let’s make query links and we get this repaired
. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- We can have
I’m still fiddling about the sport/discipline/event/match thing. Our meta items unfortunately are not well-defined at the moment, so here comes a short overview:
- A sporting event (Q20731002) (match, fight, heat, etc.) is part of a sporting event (Q16510064). The winners of a match progress to the next round or, if the match is a final (Q1366722), they win the event.
- A sporting event (Q16510064) is composed of several sporting event (Q20731002), which are organized in an event-specific progression system. In the end, there is (typically) one winner per event (“Gold medalist”) who has eliminated all other competitors.
- A sports discipline (Q2312410) is a term important for multi-sport event (Q167170) and comprises of several very similar, but distinct sporting event (Q16510064).
- A type of sport (Q31629) is a term that groups “somehow related” sports discipline (Q2312410), although this appears a bit artificial sometimes (e.g. diving (Q7735) and swimming (Q31920) are part of “Aquatics,” which hasn’t even an item). Please note: type of sport (Q31629) (or simply “sports”) and sports discipline (Q2312410) are sometimes mixed up.
- A “sports competition” (maybe sports competition (Q13406554), but also tournament (Q500834)) is an event that hosts one or many sporting event (Q16510064). It is a multi-sport event (Q167170), events are grouped to sports discipline (Q2312410) and/or type of sport (Q31629).
There are also more generic items such as competition (Q476300) and event (Q1656682) (and possibly other) and Olympics-specific items such as Olympic sporting event (Q18536594). To my opinion these structural meta items need to be repaired to be really useful for the Olympics items. Any ideas what to do? Did I forget anything? —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Hi, new member of the project here, hope to be of some help!) :)
- IMHO up to sports discipline (Q2312410) the hierarchy is well defined, and I would not touch it -- if we're trying to make a structure that would apply also for other multi-sport events like the Olympics. Otherwise, I'd suggest to substitute sporting event (Q16510064) with Olympic sporting event (Q18536594) (and putting a subclass of (P279)sporting event (Q16510064) in the latter, to be sure).
- I noted that sports discipline (Q2312410)subclass of (P279)type of sport (Q31629), which makes kind of sense. If we take the men's 100 metres event in athletics, the "100 meters" race would be a sports discipline (Q2312410), which is a "subclass of" athletics (and, by the way, diving (Q7735) and swimming (Q31920) are part of "Aquatics" only because they're accidentally run by the same International federation, but they're two different type of sport (Q31629)).
- As for the sports competition (Q13406554)/tournament (Q500834): the latter is "a competition involving a relatively large number of competitors, all participating in a sport or game", according to English Wikipedia, which goes on to define two different senses for that:
- "One or more competitions held at a single venue and concentrated into a relatively short time interval."
- "A competition involving multiple matches, each involving a subset of the competitors, with the overall tournament winner determined based on the combined results of these individual matches."
- So a tournament (Q500834) is a sports competition (Q13406554), but a sports competition (Q13406554) isn't necessarily a tournament (Q500834), since that's just one form of event (i.e. a championship (Q1079023) is a sports competition (Q13406554) which is held regularly, while tournament (Q500834) can be just held once).
- Summing it up, the hierarchy would be (bottom up): sporting event (Q20731002) --> sporting event (Q16510064)/Olympic sporting event (Q18536594) (the latter just for the Olympics) --> sports discipline (Q2312410) --> tournament (Q500834) --> sports competition (Q13406554)
- Just to complicate things a bit :) these steps aren't mandatory, and should be adapted for every type of sport (Q31629). -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 20:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Great to see you here — feel welcomed!
- I agree to a far extent, and will continue to work in this field. At the moment I’m busy to add Olympics results to Wikipedia, and since this project is something we can’t make anyway during these Olympic Games, I somehow postponed work a bit.
- A problem to my experience is that competition (Q476300) and event (Q1656682) (any maybe some others) are really poorly defined. Since we subclass sports-specific items from them, this is a problem. I don’t dare to change them, because this might potentially break a lot of now-correct property uses. (Maybe I’ll add more on this in the next days…) —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Great to see you here — feel welcomed!
SPARQL lists of items edit
(this is a worklist; feel free to add or optimize query links) —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
| Description | Number of expected results | SPARQL link |
|---|---|---|
| All editions of Summer Olympic Games | ||
| Instances of Summer Games editions (1896–2024) | 34 | [1] |
| All time Summer Olympics disciplines (class items such as rowing at the Summer Olympics (Q720609)) | ? | (please add link here) |
| All time Summer Olympics events (class items such as ??) | ? | (please add link here) |
| All time Summer Olympics disciplines (instance items such as basketball at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q17759500)) | ? | (please add link here) |
| All time Summer Olympics events (instance items such as basketball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – men's tournament (Q18416654)) | ? | (please add link here) |
| 2016 Summer Olympic Games in particular | ||
| 2016 Olympic disciplines (instance items such as basketball at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q17759500)) | 34 | Query |
| 2016 Olympic events (instance items such as basketball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – men's tournament (Q18416654)) | 306 | Query |
Olympic sports and disciplines overview edit
I have compiled a table of structural items of Olympic sports and Olympic disciplines. Some are still missing (no item existing or no item found). Data from de:Olympische Sportarten and en:Olympic sports. I will continue to work on these items, but feel free to help. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wow! You have probably saved me a lot of time. --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think I would not link the demo-only winter sport of speed skiing (Q1358925) with Speed skating more rather with skiing of some sort or either alone as it is a style of skiing which is under the jurisdiction of International Ski and Snowboard Federation (Q212928) and not International Skating Union (Q543115). The speed skiers are using different type of equipment on their feets which is more alike skiers than speed skaters. (Hopefully the initial txt in the table was a typo?) Regards Migrant (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it was, and it is fixed now. Thanks for noting! —MisterSynergy (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Usage of suitable properties for discipline and event items edit
Is home venue (P115) really the best property for a place where the event takes place? Yes, at least from the current properties that we have it seems to be the best, but doesn't sound like correct. --Stryn (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know in some cases it is very crappy. If you have better ideas, I'm open to hear them. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
[Country] at X Summer/Winter Olympics edit
Germany at the 2012 Summer Olympics (Q140287). We probably could make these items prettier, do some reorganizing. Don't thik instance of (P31) value is the best one. And where to put size of delegation? Maybe size of team at start (P2103)? If yes, then I can add it with bot later, when will move forward to 5th August (together with flag bearer, if they will be approved, of course), as there may be some changes and it's not trivial to get the data (via HarvestTemplates) from enwiki infoboxes. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's talk a little bit about this one. We should decide till which level we add this property. Of course, the most easy one is symply add 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8613), which will probably be added a lot. I would be fine with it. But I think, that we can replace 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8613) with volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q18395722). Wikijens has proposed adding athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – men's marathon (Q1798983). I could disagree with that. It would mean to have way too much values for some swimmers (OG, World champs x2 (Long and shourt course), Continental champs x2; and they usually compete in several disciplines and several years). Currently I'm thinking to list all participants of discipline in discipline items + place, if it can be easily taken (from enwiki article). --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well I would agree with Wikijens here. Participation on event level is the most specific way I can think of. Bonus: we have ~10.000 participants in ~300 events, thus on average some 30 participants per event. This makes it even possible to fulfill this inverse condition of participant in (P1344), which is participant (P710), on the event items. In contrast this would not be possible with 10.000 items on the item of the Games itself.
- For teams, however, participating team (P1923) instead of participant (P710) might be more suitable, but this would require an individual (instance) item for each team at the olympics. I have no preference in this question yet. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, that means more work and having a good structure of items (first section of talk page), but of course, it would be better. --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are there a possibility to set a version of participating team (P1923) with a qualifier, meaning that unique team at the chosen event that it is participating at. Regards Migrant (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also support Wikijens' solution. Use the most specific items. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also support Wikijens' solution, we can cope with creating many items like this. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also support Wikijens' solution. Use the most specific items. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are there a possibility to set a version of participating team (P1923) with a qualifier, meaning that unique team at the chosen event that it is participating at. Regards Migrant (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, that means more work and having a good structure of items (first section of talk page), but of course, it would be better. --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Medalists edit
Synthesis of the problem: how do we indicate on an athlete's item that he won one or more medals at (modern and ancient) Olympics?
- Modern Olympic Games
Let's examine the actual situation. I think the correct property is victory (P2522), but only 4 Olympic medalists' items have it. I've also tried to investigate award received (P166), but the numerous results contained awards which weren't Olympic medals.
4 results for victory (P2522), which in fact are only 2 (the other 2 have victory (P2522) with non-Olympic competitions), viz. Fatuma Roba (Q239208) and Valentina Yegorova (Q266733). They are similar, so I will examine only one:
⟩ victory (P2522) ⟨ athletics at the 1992 Summer Olympics – women's marathon (Q1444605) ⟩race time (P2781)
⟨ 9,161±1 second ⟩point in time (P585)
⟨ 1 August 1992 ⟩So P2522 with the item of the specific event won with the race time and the precise date (the day) as qualifier. This may be good for a gold medalist, but how can we manage silver and bronze medalists?
- Ancient Olympic Games
I have been dealing with Ancient Olympic winners for many weeks. Firstly, an important piece of information: there weren't silver and bronze medals, there was only the winner.
For ancient Olympic winners I started from the first Olympic Games (776 BCE) in this way, which is probably incorrect: award received (P166) with Olympic champion (Q23905927) or a subclass of it specifying the type of sport, i.e. Olympic victor, stadion (Q23906217), and the year of the Olympic Games as qualifier. A clear example is Astylos of Croton (Q705166). Is it a correct method? Should I use victory (P2522) instead (if yes, in which way)?
Finally, for ancient Olympic competitors I haven't implemented participant in (P1344) yet. How should I do it? participant in (P1344)Ancient Olympic Games (Q188468) with the year of the Olympic Games as qualifier or it would be better to bot-create all the elements for Ancient Olympic Games (at the moment we only have 776 BC Ancient Olympic Games (Q11851955)) in order to use them without the year as qualifier (as we do for modern Olympic Games)?
Please help me! Thank you very much, --Epìdosis 10:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have seen people using "rang" as qualifier at participant in (P1344) for indicating place. --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of work is to be done in order to get sports results to Wikidata (btw. there is a Wikidata:WikiProject Sport results. Not very active, though.). award received (P166) is indeed not the right property to deal with it, so let’s forget about this one. A clean solution would require to create a vast amount of items for each individual instance of a team ever competed, and for each individual person ever competed, and so on. I think Edgars2007’s proposal would somehow work for now, and there is results (P2501) (look at the example) as well… —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: OK, award received (P166) isn't suitable ... so what do you suggest me for ancient Olympic Games? --Epìdosis 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don’t have noteworthy knowledge about the Ancient Olympic Games. As far as I can read from Wikipedia articles, we don’t have items for individual editions of the Ancient Games, nor do we have an idea of how many editions have been held. There are probably some hundreds of articles about ancient Olympic competitors (see Category:Ancient Olympic competitors (Q8251122) and Q9314121), and we don’t have to expect that this number significantly increases in future. I would therefore recommend to use the victory (P2522) property on the competitor items, along with as many useful qualifiers as possible. I wouldn’t bother about the fact that this is very different from how we might add modern Olympic results – the Ancient Games and the Modern Games do not really share much in common apart from their name. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- So, returning to Astylos of Croton (Q705166), would become ?
- Is the second form OK @MisterSynergy:? --Epìdosis 18:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don’t have noteworthy knowledge about the Ancient Olympic Games. As far as I can read from Wikipedia articles, we don’t have items for individual editions of the Ancient Games, nor do we have an idea of how many editions have been held. There are probably some hundreds of articles about ancient Olympic competitors (see Category:Ancient Olympic competitors (Q8251122) and Q9314121), and we don’t have to expect that this number significantly increases in future. I would therefore recommend to use the victory (P2522) property on the competitor items, along with as many useful qualifiers as possible. I wouldn’t bother about the fact that this is very different from how we might add modern Olympic results – the Ancient Games and the Modern Games do not really share much in common apart from their name. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. You can carefully study Property talk:P2522 to find out which statements are expected on both the items of competitors (winners) and competitions in order to make it also technically a valid statement. The winner in the given example is already okay (instance of (P31)human (Q5)), the item about the competition needs to have an instance of (P31) statement with an item that subclasses competition (Q476300) (not done as far as I can see, but since we do not want to add an item for each edition this somehow has to be done). You can also add the inverse winner (P1346) statement to the competition item, with a qualifier for the time of course. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, this solution seems good to be. Nevertheless, before using a bot, I would like to hear some other opinions: @Edgars2007, Stryn, Migrant:. --Epìdosis 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
My opinion: for every race we must use participant (P710) that list all the partecipants and for every partecipant we can add ranking (P1352) for the result and other property for relevant thing (example time, or next round). Add the result on the item of the athlet isn't feasible because are too much events, and for athlets with a long history, we talk of thousands of results. For the team we must create item for the team. Second thing, I don't like manage in different manner same things like the proposal di manage ancient Olympics in different manner of modern Olympics, probably it's too complicated for anyone who needs to use the data, we must manage similar things in the same manner. I notice the Project Chat, because these decisions have impact on a lot of item. --ValterVB (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. You propose to set up very detailed sports results in Wikidata, which would theoretically be the best idea to my opinion as well. There are practical problems, however, so here are two objections to your proposal:
- The number of items for “teams” and “races” (games, matches, …) would be far too large, if done properly. In the past I tried to estimate these numbers for rowing (Q159354), and it turned out that there is a 6-figure number of required items to expect just for this type of sports, which isn’t even very popular. If it comes to the big type of sports like association football (Q2736), we probably drown in structural items that we need to have sports results only.
- Quite often, not all competitors of a sports event are known. This is in particular the case for the Ancient Olympic Games, for which we don’t even know how many editions have been held and so on. From my experience this is also valid for many sports events of the pre-Internet time. Surprisingly often we just know winners or podiums or maybe finalists, but not the list of entries or full results. If we now were to add full results here, there would be a vast mount of “unknown value” claims.
- For that reason I think that sports results can and should be added to Wikidata only selectively at the moment, perhaps in a manner that serves Wikipedia’s needs. Full results can perhabs be referenced to by usage of suitable properties. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Probably: ranking (P1352) = 1 and qualifier award received (P166) = Olympic gold medal (Q15243387)
- I don't think that the number of item is a problem, is more problematic the number of property in an item. --ValterVB (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Technically this would not be a problem, but if we start to add items for all of these entities, we should ask the Wikidata community for consensus. Your proposal would lead to a large number of “structural items” (pt. 3 according to Wikidata:Notability) and this by itself is probably somewhat controversial. Regarding the number of statements per item: at which amount do they start to become problematic? I know that big items are somewhat difficult to load, but I have no idea at which stage an item is “big”. Regards, —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that the number of item is a problem, is more problematic the number of property in an item. --ValterVB (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that award received (P166) is entirely adequate. A victory in the Olympic Games was not just a victory (P2522). It was a most important prize characterizing the person for him whole life and immortalizing him. I therefore believe that we should re-examine the adequateness of victory (P2522) and leave award received (P166), as it is already established. --FocalPoint (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting but difficult discussion. My thoughts:
- Gold medallists: Should have both award received (P166)-Olympic gold medal (Q15243387) and victory (P2522).
- Silver and Bronze medallists: Should have award received (P166)-Olympic silver medal (Q15889641)/Olympic bronze medal (Q15889643).
- For general competitors participant in (P1344) seems a logical addition. But a possible problem is that individual sportsmen may have competed in really a lot of competitions. ValterVB refers to that. And if the sportsperson did not compete as an individual, but in a team, things may get messy, at least a good qualifier is needed. I think ValterVB's idea solves that in a good structural way. And not in all cases it is important that the item is competition-specific. For a friendly soccer match, for instance, Denmark national association football team (Q131785) could be used, with players by a qualifier (has part(s) of the class (P2670)?). In a competition - like olympic games, continental, or world championships - it is probably best to have seperate items for the team at that competition. I am not afraid for numbers of items. However, I have one concern on ValterVB's plan. Individual events may have really many competitors. Think of individual editions of Marathon of New York. Easily thousands of notable individual competitors compete in these events. That may result in too many property claims on that item. That's a main concern I have about his proposal.
- So generally I support ValterVB's idea, but for olympic medallists I think there medals should be added to the competitors item with award received (P166) and a gold medal also with victory (P2522).
- Just my 2cts. Lymantria (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I support @Lymantria:: I'd only want to know were he would place the qualifiers (I guess on victory (P2522) and I want to ask him if he considers OK statements like award received (P166)Olympic victor, stadion (Q23906217) (I underline that in ancient Olympics there weren't medals and only the winner received an award, a laurel crown). --Epìdosis 11:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis: According to ValterVB's plan as I interpret it, the info on the event and results should be in the target item of victory (P2522), not necessarily at the sportsperson's item. For medallists this target item should be linked to by participant in (P1344), as I see it.
- For ancient olympics winners perhaps it is more appropriate to use significant event (P793)Olympic victor, stadion (Q23906217) as I think you cannot really compare these games with modern sports events. For non winning competitors in general, of course you may use participant in (P1344). Lymantria (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: Why significant event (P793) instead of award received (P166)? Isn't the second more appropriate? I think the laurel crown can be considered an "award received". --Epìdosis 12:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK with me, but then I would make it award received (P166)laurel wreath (Q734844). "Winner" is not a prize. Lymantria (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree with Lymantria here. We should also make sure to have a statement laurel wreath (Q734844)instance of (P31)item which subclasses award (Q618779) to fulfill the contraints given on Property talk:P166. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK with me, but then I would make it award received (P166)laurel wreath (Q734844). "Winner" is not a prize. Lymantria (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lymantria: Why significant event (P793) instead of award received (P166)? Isn't the second more appropriate? I think the laurel crown can be considered an "award received". --Epìdosis 12:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I support @Lymantria:: I'd only want to know were he would place the qualifiers (I guess on victory (P2522) and I want to ask him if he considers OK statements like award received (P166)Olympic victor, stadion (Q23906217) (I underline that in ancient Olympics there weren't medals and only the winner received an award, a laurel crown). --Epìdosis 11:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for ancient Olympics edit
So, I try to summarize a new proposal about ancient Olympic:
- Competitor item
- participant in (P1344)event item for all competitors
- award received (P166)Olympic laurel wreath (Q26206601) for winners
- victory (P2522)event item for winners
- Event item
- The model is 776 BC Ancient Olympic Games (Q11851955)
Only one doubt: do we have to create an item for all competitions in each edition of ancient Olympics for which the winner is known (stadion at X BCE Olympics, pentathlon at X BCE Olympics ...)? Wouldn't it be better to indicate the sport as qualifier instead? --Epìdosis 14:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC) @Edgars2007, MisterSynergy, ValterVB, FocalPoint, Lymantria: --Epìdosis 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- For the modern Olympic Games we (will) have individual items for all competition events, but there is much more data available for those. To my opinion a qualifier approach (e.g. by using sports discipline competed in (P2416)) would be okay for the Ancient Games. Nobody would query data for modern and ancient editions at the same time and expect to have identical data quality. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC) (btw. I did not receive a Ping, but saw this on my watchlist)
- Agreed. Lymantria (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with this model as it is to complicated. As it is now, the automatic trasfer to wikipedia works excellently, see the automatically filled-in infobox in el:Άστυλος ο Κροτωνιάτης (I just put it in, see here. Check also the automatic translation to English [2], or any other language. Since it works so well, why "fix" it?
Nevertheless, if we do prefer to go with it, it has to be one item per competition in each edition of ancient Olympics for which the winner is known, as it is now. Otherwise, the data put in wikidata will make no sense and it will be of little value to wikipedia.
--FocalPoint (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I didn’t know that
- there is already some data of the type award received (P166)Olympic champion (Q23905927) or subclass thereof available (Query); and
- that this data is actually used in Wikipedia(s), in particular elwiki.
- If we now changed this type of relation, which I still support, we would need to inform the one who is responsible for this infobox as well. Although the box is not listed on Property talk:P166, as I would expect if it pulls data from award received (P166) statements. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think an item per ancient event would be better. I know it's a huge pain in the a**, but it would also be the best and more coherent solution with the rest of the project. Moreover, there is plenty of sources about ancient winners... we just need to ask the right scientific communities for that. Wikimedia Italia has some connections with epigraphic scholars, we can actually use them to reach some historian in the field. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 20:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Figure skating properties edit
Three linked proposals for new properties to handle figure skating data:
- Wikidata:Property proposal/Technical Element Score
- Wikidata:Property proposal/Program Component Score
- Wikidata:Property proposal/Deductions (figure skating)
--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sports, disciplines and events edit
Samples edit
- Items used: Olympic sport (Q212434)
- Properties used: instance of (P31)
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?itemDescription
{
?item wdt:P31 wd:Q212434
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
- The above gives currently 9, e.g. Nordic skiing (Q216613)
- Items used: Olympic sports discipline event (Q26132862)
- Properties used: instance of (P31)
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?itemDescription
{
?item wdt:P31 wd:Q26132862
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
- The above gives currently 8, e.g. 100 metres hurdles (Q164731), but mostly items like artistic swimming at the Summer Olympics (Q262650)
- Items used: Olympic sporting event (Q18536594)
- Properties used: instance of (P31)
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?itemDescription
{
?item wdt:P31 wd:Q18536594
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
- The above gives currently 6825 items.
Discussion edit
To improve Wikidata:WikiProject Sports/reports/equipment/winter sports, I think it would help
- if P31=Olympic sport (Q212434) was consistently added to more items like ice hockey (Q41466).
- For disciplines, P31=Olympic sports discipline event (Q26132862) on items like single skating (Q1310143) could help too.
- Olympic sporting event (Q18536594) shouldn't be on any items currently on that list.
What do you think?
--- Jura 06:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Olympics
--- Jura 06:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Nations at Games edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Olympics
Many of the instances of Olympic delegation (Q26213387) currently use part of (P361) to link the Games, but participant in (P1344) seems the better fit.
- Sample for the first: Peru at the 1992 Summer Olympics (Q18907)
- sample for the second: Romania at the 1992 Summer Olympics (Q60086).
--- Jura 14:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. We should finally sit around the table and agree on the best variant for nation at games (not only Olympics) items. --Edgars2007 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @&beer&love: who isn't included in the above ping, but did quite a lot of edits.
--- Jura 15:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Now they all use participant in (P1344). Joao4669 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Olympics result ontology edit
Do we have anything close to a working version of an ontology for Olympics results? I'm thinking along the lines of this. A lot of the above discussion relates to how we treat the data at the athlete item, but I think most of the key work is at competition level. For example, how do we get the results of en:Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race into Wikidata? This should be a straight forward example, as it's an individual straight final format, thus presumably should be held directly at Q24760634 through some combination of ranking (P:P1352), race time (P:P2781) and time gap (P:P2911) linked athletes summarised under participant (P:P710)?
On a related note, I've got a few questions on the basics of timings for results. The current setup is quite awkward as race time handles seconds only, which makes input a little awkward for any competitions much longer than a few minutes. Is there any way to have an input mask, so that one could input, for example 1:40.91, which would be stored as value 100.91 seconds but show in the usual time format through a mask? Also, anyone know how the Wikidata precision works for times in seconds? Do we need a new parameter to handle timing method and precision of timing for results (e.g. to whole second, tenth of seconds, hundredth or thousandth of second etc.)? This comes in relevant for older performances before electronic timing, as a hand-timed 9.9 is fundamentally different from an electronically measured 9.90. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- We don’t really have an ontology, and we have tons of fragmented data and approaches. Overall, this is still in a very bad situation and needs a lot of work. I am highly interested in developing an ontology, and I already have some experience and examples from a couple of (Olympic) types of sports.
- In general, one would have to set up multi-sport events (such as 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8613)), disciplines/sports (cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q11889336)), and event items (cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – men's individual road race (Q24760634)) first. Many of them are not properly connected right now (symmetrically with part of (P361) and has part(s) (P527)), and it is reasonable to assume that there are even many duplicates. The type of items is a little different from the BBC approach, and to some extent pre-determined by the nature of the items we have here due to the sitelinks. The model could easily be extended by more fine granular entities such as round and individual races/matches/fights and so on, but right now we don’t have much information about that level anyway.
- Once this is done, my recommendation would be to use participant (P710) with values for individual athletes or teams, qualifiers ranking (P1352) (mandatory), and, depending on the type of sport, things like race time (P2781) or whatever is the relevant measure. Only include results from the final round here. In athletes items, this information can we added similarly with participant in (P1344) to the event item, which would be very useful for infoboxes.
- There are some more general things to discuss (in the field of sports/types of sports/sports disciplines definitions, and in the field of sports occurrence definitions), but this would go too far here.
- On the time format matter: Currently there is no way to format it properly in the GUI, but I remember that someone once asked for it. There could be a phab task, but I cannot find it. Regarding precision: quantity datatype properties (such as race time (P2781)) do not have a precision parameter, just upper and lower bounds with a rather poor definition. For sports results, it seems inapplicable to use bounds at all. Rather than adding this kind of information directly within the time statement (or qualifier), one might want to add it as a claim to the event item (like: "some race long time ago --> timing precision --> manually stopped to 10th of a second", "more recent race --> timing precision --> electronically stopped to 1000th of a second, rounded to 100th of a second", and so on…). —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: Some good ideas to start with there! I've linked in all the 2016 Olympic cycling with part of/has part relationships. When you refer to "many duplicates" do you have any examples of what you are referring to? My thoughts so far:
- I've added the first ten finishers as an example to cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – men's individual road race (Q24760634). I have included the delegation the participant represents (e.g. Belgium at the 2016 Summer Olympics) as a qualifier via member of sports team (P54). Does that feel right?
- I have also added the medals awarded via trophy awarded (P4622), though I'm not sure applies to part (P518) is the best way to denote the medalling athlete? Looking at 2015 Tour de France (Q15220420) I see another option would be to include medallists in the winner section instead, via of (P642). This method has the advantage of avoiding duplication between listing a winner and listing a gold medallist, though I'm not 100% sure about listing all medallists as "winners" per se.
- I have denoted the competition as a men's one via competition class (P2094). I've also added the open class here with a minimum age of 18 (though more specifically this should be minimum birth date of 31 December 1997). Aside from that minor point, these properties seem good to go.
- There is a need for some kind of "outcome" to clarify things like Disqualified, Did Not Start, Did Not Finish, and Over Time Limit (the latter two are relevant to the cycling event at hand). I've seen some items use significant event (P793) but that really doesn't feel right to me given its main usage of events that happened in a location or to a person, as for us this piece of information is more a clarification of non-ranking status. Is there a need for a new property here? I haven't been able to locate something which does this for sport yet - it's a concept common across competitions of any kind.
- How should we link in tournament qualification data? There should be some form of relationship with cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – qualification (Q19404477). 2014 FIFA World Cup (Q79859) uses the has part/part of model, but that really doesn't feel right for me as it logically suggests anyone engaging in qualifying has competed in a part of the competition itself. That is problematic in many sports where qualifying is a consideration of elite performances in general rather than tied to a specific pre-tournament, such as the FIFA World Cup example. There is an ongoing discussion at Wikidata:Property proposal/Qualifications which I will add to in this regard. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ad 1: The claims do indeed need a qualifier to participant (P710)/participating team (P1923) that tells us for which country the competitors participated, but there are several possibilities where I do not have a real preference yet. They all have (dis)advantages:
- country for sport (P1532): Belgium (Q31) (very easy to set up, easy to query for all types of sports, all types of competitions)
- member of sports team (P54): Belgium at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q18072462) (very specific, but also expensive to set up and to maintain; probably only works for very big events such as the Olympics, but not for smaller competitions where we don’t have these items due to the sitelinks; not sure whether it is worth the effort as I don’t see which advantage for data users this approach has)
- member of sports team (P54): “national cycling team of Belgium” (per type of sport and per country, but not per year), or member of sports team (P54): “Belgian national team” (per country, but not per type of sport and not per year), etc.
- Ad 2: This looks redundant to ranking qualifiers, and only works for winners (and maybe podiums). I’d not do this, although such an approach is not uncommon, typically with award received (P166) to Olympic Medal items.
- Ad 3: I’ve spent some effort into the competition class (P2094) property recently, and I suggest to do it a little differently. See Wikidata:WikiProject Rowing/competition classes for the situation in the sport of rowing. The idea is to have around 5–20 competition class items per type of sport (such as “men’s individual road race” for cycling, example for rowing lightweight men's coxless four (Q26214811)). You then have to use only one competition class item in the event item, without any qualifier. If the 5–20 competition class items per type of sport are properly set up and used in the event items, it is extremely cool to query. The competition class (P2094) hasn’t been used for quite a while, but we meanwhile have rowing, tennis, and association football which use it more intensely. I’d help to set up further types of sport this way.
- Ad 4: yes a qualifier to the participant (P710)/participating team (P1923) claim, but I can’t tell which one. Just as you I immediately thought of significant event (P793), but it does not feel right to me as well.
- Ad 5: I didn’t know the new qualification properties, but I do know qualifies for event (P3085). It can link from the qualification event item to the actual event item, so the new one, at first glance, appears to be somewhat of an inverse property.
- Ad 1: The claims do indeed need a qualifier to participant (P710)/participating team (P1923) that tells us for which country the competitors participated, but there are several possibilities where I do not have a real preference yet. They all have (dis)advantages:
- —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: From a query perspective, using the country for sport and the main country item to mark the national team is probably the most useful. You could derive the national sports team and the delegation from the rest of the data items in the query. The sole problem I see with this is around Unified Team/Refugee Team/Neutral etc. Can we set those up within country for sport? If so, then I think that's the best approach.
- Your proposed arrangement for competition class looks good. In Olympic terminology this is effectively serving as the "event" level, which resolves any problems over what the "sport" should refer to. I've made the change accordingly. Any suggestions on how we handle the (now problematic) minimum age detail?
- How about we propose a new property of "participant outcome"? This could then be used to note disqualification, DNF/DNS, as well as solve the problem of how to list the medals as we could put them there. This could also be used more generally with the participant/participating team uses, such as showing league relegation and promotion. Possibly victory and loss for its use in war too. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your concern about non-countries is a very important one. I’m afraid it basically rules out to use country for sport (P1532) at all as a qualifier. Besides the issue of non-countries (Unified Team, Refugee Team, joint Korean or German team, independent competitors, etc), this qualifier would make it impossible to use the same model for any competition that is not on national team level, i.e. club or team competitions. 1995 Tour de France (Q614452) is an example.
- The competition class solution with the qualifier "minimum age" looks good. I wouldn’t change anything there (assuming that this minimum age applies for the Olympic event only, but not in general for men's individual road race (Q51542163) events).
- I don’t get your “participant outcome” idea, can you please elaborate it with more detail? Some of your ideas like promotion/relegation seem already be covered by properties listed in Template:Sports properties. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Small comment about those participants who is not representing their country but are neutral in some way and are competing under the organizers own flag not only in the Olympics but also in other competitions like world championsships and other competitions as well. Migrant (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: In terms of the idea of "participant outcome", I'm thinking about how we store the result of athletes who end a competition with no ranking - so in this instance that would be the cyclists who took part in the race but did not finish it. Also this would cover athletes who were disqualified from the race (we'll probably need a further property to add disqualification reason) and also those athletes who were on the start list, but ultimately did not start the race. Simply the absence of a rank is not sufficient to distinguish these very different race outcomes. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- The more I think about it, the more I favor a qualifier significant event (P793) with values such as disqualification (Q1229261), did not finish (Q1210380), did not start (Q1210382) and probably some others. The significant event property meanwhile allows non-specific occurrence items as values as well [3]. The ranking qualifier could simply be set to novalue. We wouldn’t have to propose a new property where other users would suggest to use significant event (P793) anyway … —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: Some good ideas to start with there! I've linked in all the 2016 Olympic cycling with part of/has part relationships. When you refer to "many duplicates" do you have any examples of what you are referring to? My thoughts so far:
Two more property proposals edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Olympics
We currently have two new property proposals for external-id properties that should link to Olympedia:
Support would be appreciated. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking about event IDs - maybe Olympedia team would be willing to give mapping between SR and Olympedia also on this? MisterSynergy, you were the "Wikimedia contactperson" that time, right? --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, we need to figure out how to collect those identifiers in large numbers. I am not sure whether it would perhaps be easier to make a crawler script for that task. Should not be that difficult, I guess, and the number of pages to crawl is not excessively large either. We would nevertheless have to do the matching by ourselves, as there is no other property to match on as it was the case for Sports-Reference.com Olympic athlete ID (archived) (P1447) and Olympedia people ID (P8286). —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I had something else in mind. So... Wikipedias anyway still have links to Sports-Reference either as deadlinks or archived links. So we can get those links easy-ish (database queries will be a little bit slower, if checking also archived links, but that isn't a big issue, of course), I have scripts from good, ol' times for that :) Then we have mapping between Wikipedia articles (Wikidata items) and SR event IDs. If we then can get mapping between SR and Olympedia, then getting Olympedia IDs into Wikidata is a lot more easier. And then have some interface (because Mix'n'match probably won't help this time), where you can confirm, that Olympedia page is right one for Wikidata item. To be clear, I'm not proposing adding statements automatically based on external links in Wikipedia pages, have learnt my lesson (but I still believe that those weren't disruptive actions back in those times). --Edgars2007 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well I think this would be pretty incomplete and erratic.
Once the property is approved, I will try to crawl as many identifiers as possible from Olympedia, alongside with some meta information (such as Olympic Games edition, Olympic sport, and event name); this seems very doable on first impression. We can then try to match them based on the information we already have here.
If this does not work out, we might want to reconsider other approaches, including yours. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)- OK, sure, no problems. Just wanted to be helpful :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well I think this would be pretty incomplete and erratic.
- I had something else in mind. So... Wikipedias anyway still have links to Sports-Reference either as deadlinks or archived links. So we can get those links easy-ish (database queries will be a little bit slower, if checking also archived links, but that isn't a big issue, of course), I have scripts from good, ol' times for that :) Then we have mapping between Wikipedia articles (Wikidata items) and SR event IDs. If we then can get mapping between SR and Olympedia, then getting Olympedia IDs into Wikidata is a lot more easier. And then have some interface (because Mix'n'match probably won't help this time), where you can confirm, that Olympedia page is right one for Wikidata item. To be clear, I'm not proposing adding statements automatically based on external links in Wikipedia pages, have learnt my lesson (but I still believe that those weren't disruptive actions back in those times). --Edgars2007 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, we need to figure out how to collect those identifiers in large numbers. I am not sure whether it would perhaps be easier to make a crawler script for that task. Should not be that difficult, I guess, and the number of pages to crawl is not excessively large either. We would nevertheless have to do the matching by ourselves, as there is no other property to match on as it was the case for Sports-Reference.com Olympic athlete ID (archived) (P1447) and Olympedia people ID (P8286). —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
2020 Summer Olympics edit
I just set up Wikidata:WikiProject Olympics/2020 Summer Olympics. --Jklamo (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jklamo:.
- I see that a lot of items have both 2020 or/and 2021 date. I guess the ideal solution is the both 2020 and 2021 dates with the 2021 date in preferred rank (so 2020 won't show unless explicitely asked). What do you think?
- Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Modeling medals by delegation edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Olympics: I'm working on an automatic template at Basque Wikipedia. You can see the first results here. It should be interesting to have all the medals following this schema for medals: Italy at the 2020 Summer Olympics (Q42914554). -Theklan (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting, and it looks good, but since I'm not that good in understanding either the basque or this template-language for getting this from wikidata to your local wikipedia. I would like to ping olympic sports-wikipedians from the norwegian wikipedia @Knuteinar2309, Løken: to maybe look into it. But thanks for notifying. Best regards Migrant (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Theklan: A good idea! We can add the total medals to the wikidata item using Olympic medal (Q636830) [4]. In terms of presentation at Wikipedia, I think it would be better to use a table in the infobox (like French Wikipedia) which matches a medal table style, rather than a list style.
- It would be good to include data on participants and medals won by the delegation. Adding participants is simple, because we can use has part(s) (P527) and add the athlete, including qualifier of sports discipline competed in (P2416). Adding delegation medals is more tricky (first attempt here). I think we should expand the scope of for work (P1686) to include sports competitions so we can add medal level data on athlete and delegation data items. I suggest we avoid duplicating complex performance level data on the delegation articles, which is traditionally how "award received" is added to athlete articles (see Vito Dell'Aquila (Q30905650)). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sillyfolkboy: including every medal winner there could be tricky for adding the information into templates. I would, for now, add only the number of medals of each category and the total medals. About the format, yes, we can do it better, it was only the first attempt. But if the model is correct and we go with this, adding formatting is really easy. -Theklan (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Theklan: Yes, I agree double listing of Olympic gold medal (Q15243387) under Award Received is confusing, especially when doing data extract. We could create a data item for each event gold medal, so rather than listing "Olympic gold medal" twice, we could have Award Received --> Olympic gold medal in men's 58 kg Taekwondo. In turn, that data item could hold data for all past the winners of that specific Olympic event. Any thoughts on that? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sillyfolkboy: That's an interesting idea. Ideally, we should have that in the athlete's field, and not in the olympic team. I would add the Olympic team for the winner, : as here. But actually, the National Women's Soccer League player ID (P5222) would also be doing that. -Theklan (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Migrant: I have refined the code (once it seems that this ontology is correct): eu:Italia 2020ko Udako Olinpiar Jokoetan. -Theklan (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looks great :) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Theklan: Yes, I agree double listing of Olympic gold medal (Q15243387) under Award Received is confusing, especially when doing data extract. We could create a data item for each event gold medal, so rather than listing "Olympic gold medal" twice, we could have Award Received --> Olympic gold medal in men's 58 kg Taekwondo. In turn, that data item could hold data for all past the winners of that specific Olympic event. Any thoughts on that? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sillyfolkboy: including every medal winner there could be tricky for adding the information into templates. I would, for now, add only the number of medals of each category and the total medals. About the format, yes, we can do it better, it was only the first attempt. But if the model is correct and we go with this, adding formatting is really easy. -Theklan (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Sillyfolkboy: Thinking on this. I think we should have three levels of connection:
- For the Olympic delegation, only number of medals won. Italy at the 2020 Summer Olympics (Q42914554)
- For all the Olympic competitors: the event they competed on, the ranking and the Olympic delegation. We may have an item for each of the medals of each of the events, but may be redundant. Vito Dell'Aquila (Q30905650)
- For the event: the winner and the Olympic delegation. taekwondo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – men's 58 kg (Q65245123)
I think that with this three different ontologies, all the information can be achieved, because we can easily know which Olympic delegation was representing the winner, so we can also know which events were won by an specific delegation. -Theklan (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
So, should we have an item for each of the medals? I think we should, because we know are duplicating the information: participant and winner have the same information. We should have a model where the humans participate at events and win prizes, and the prizes are related to the event. Theklan (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Theklan: I mainly have relational database experience so in the past I have been cautious about duplicating data, but the more I learn, the more I see that duplication is a feature of a Wikidata's document-oriented database not a problem.
- In terms of the data usage, I'm thinking to add the medalists to populate tables like this one on Wikipedia. It would be possible to extract that same information from all the athlete wikidata items, but that would require more complex query design. The idea with document-oriented databases is that most datasets specifically about the topic should be present on the document (rather than derived from multiple other documents). That means the gold medalist data can appear on items at many levels, so taking Vito Dell'Aquila as the example he could be listed as a winner at:
- Round level item – 2020 Olympic men's 58 kg Taekwondo final
- Event instance level item – 2020 Olympic men's 58 kg Taekwondo competition
- Event series level item - Olympic men's 58 kg Taekwondo competition
- Medal series level item - Olympic men's 58 kg Taekwondo gold medal
- Sport instance level item – taekwondo at the 2020 Olympics
- Delegation instance level item - Italy at the 2020 Olympics
- Wikipedia articles for levels 2, 3, 5 and 6 are already common and would benefit from centralised, language-neutral data for table population (concepts 1 and 4 are subsections of concepts 2 and 3 in Wikipedia articles). If we can populate common tables on these articles directly with data from their Wikidata items then this will greatly simplify query design. We may need design controls to keep the data aligned across these articles though. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sillyfolkboy: Indeed! Redundancy is not the main issue, and Vito Dell'Aquila may be winner of all of these, with the proper qualifiers. What I'm suggestiong is that we need to link the participants, the delegations and the events, so we can extract everything and make lists easily. For example, if I want to know who was in the delegation of the italian olympic team in a given year, I can't get it now, because we don't have the membership at the correct level.
- I also think that having a an item called Olympic men's 58 kg Taekwondo gold medal is a really good idea, and that Vito Dell'Aquila is a winner of that item. In the same way, people recives awards and not events. Participation should be strictly about events; winners about the award. -Theklan (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok! So all the medals won by each delegation in the history of the Olympics is now at Wikidata! You can help with other tasks at
Olympics edit-a-thon at Wikimania Hackathon edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Olympics Let's have an Olympics datathon and edit-a-thon at the Wikimania 2021 Hackathon! If you want to add yourself, propose things we can work on or just mess around, visit the phabricator ticket. -Theklan (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is there some temporal restriction when this is going to take place? I would be interested a lot, but I am very constrained with respect to available timeslots.
- Two years ago (or so) I worked a lot on Olympic events, effectively to make them "complete" and link them to discipline and games edition events. Some basic Listeria reports are linked from the main page of this WikiProject. Not sure how complete 2020 is, as this was well before the current edition took place.
- I think we need a lot more documentation and potentially discussion in some way with interested editors in order to come up with solutions for difficult problems. The heavy editing itself can be done later.
- —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: There's no time limit, but the Hackathon itself will be running during the Friday (non-stop). -Theklan (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the info. I am going to try to get a smaller task done on Friday evening (European time). If possible, I would also be available for discussions and I try to follow the phabricator ticket(s) throughout the day. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: There's no time limit, but the Hackathon itself will be running during the Friday (non-stop). -Theklan (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Listing host organization officials, (prominent) volunteers, (media) partners and sponsors edit
I noticed that much of the work is only on sport disciplines, athletes and results, but I wonder if organizational aspects are also being tracked?
I am interested in how listing of host organization officials, (prominent) volunteers, (media) partners and sponsors can be done best...
Best --Zblace (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
2022 Winter Olympics edit
Here is SPARQL based overview - Wikidata:WikiProject Olympics/2022 Winter Olympics. --Jklamo (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Great, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)