Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT)!

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!

--Soft Human (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


When adding links to databases, please add each database ID only once, not twice. Also, please be sure that the ID matches the data item. For a work (such as Metamorphoses (Q184742)) only add IDs for that work, not for editions or specific translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am aware, it's going to be the second complex part of the work I will be doing in the next months with other volunteers. that's just a slip of the mouse. Everything is checked on a list later (as you can see from my edits).
Since we are here, please notice that this edit is "forced". A more generic statement can be kept maybe with a lower rank depending on the quality of the source but in this case the source of Wikipedia is precisely what should be dismissed. "Classical latin" includes "latin" so there is no point a statement that is a more generic dubplicate especially if the source is not technically reliable (you should put the surce inside ptwiki, maybe, but not ptwiki). Wikidata should have never authorize such wiki-centric imports in the first place... let's not keep it further than necessary. it will take more work later to refine and improve all the types of Latin used by author with accurate sources, in any case.--Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT) (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I dont' really care abuot the value of the language, it's not main focus in all this work, but if I am adding a more precise statement with sources, and another one is more generic and sourced with "Wikipedia", i remove it. If somebody want to put it back with a double value, use a better source. We have plenty of them now.--Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT) (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikidata doesn't eliminate variant data if the data is correct or is citable to a reputable source. There will be many, many sources that identify the work's language as "Latin" and that data should not be deleted simply because other sources say "Classical Latin". I agree that a better source should be used in place of a Wikipedia reference, but if the data is likely to be citable to an authoritative reference, the data should not be removed. Just as we do not delete birth data and death data where different credible sources have made different determinations. Each bit of data is stored and cited. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
EncycloPetey as you can see, I keep multiple values for birth dates or death dates, but "Classical Latin" is also "Latin", it's a neat inclusion. So there is no loss of infomation removing it if one is present. Of course, I am not very rigid on the matter because I know how people are not very efficient in creating queries in these scenarios.
One day in the future there will be some standardization on the issue, including the ranking, in the meantime there is one thing we can do and that is to improve the sources. between undoing and reinserting with a better sources, the second option is better.
I also point out that I have found plenty of items where "Latin" was removed with a more specific vale in the past, not by me, so one single undo has basically no effect on the matter.
One day we will finalize a standard (indcluding ranking) and by that time accurate sourcing will be important to clean up, so if there is one thing we can agree is that acting on a single case undoing information with a poor source has no effect, if a second value is percieved as necessary, let's add it with an external source. Just that.--Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT) (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Q12899580 e Q105739942Edit

Ciao! Forse lo saprai meglio di me se questi due elementi sono uguali o no. Il primo e legato a Quintus Serenus (Q12901708), l'altro a Serenus Sammonicus (Q933792). Sembra molto confuso chi sia l'autore di quale testo. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

it might be Jahl de Vautban , I am sure I did not find the alias but I will check again when I am finished with another part of the work. It is still missing the second step of revision. Thanks for noticing.--Alessandro Marchetti (WMIT) (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jahl de Vautban:, grazie per la segnalazione! Era esattamente la stessa opera, ho unito gli elementi. Buona serata, --Epìdosis 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)