Open main menu

User talk:Beat Estermann


Cultural heritageEdit


I responded to your post at Wikidata_talk:Cultural_heritage_task_force#Switzerland. --  Docu  at 15:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Museum typesEdit

Please see discussion at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Not notable but... (museums). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) important modificationsEdit

Hello, Was there a discussion/consensus before please ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Hi, I've left a comment on the talk page with a pointer to the reflections behind the renaming, including links to two earlier exchanges with User:VIGNERON. At the time the members of the WikiProject Books had been notified of the discussion. Given the absence of participation of other community members, I wouldn't exactly call it a community consensus. The change I introduced however just reflects the earlier policy of using <edition> as an entity covering both frbr:Expression and frbr:Manifestation and makes this policy explicit. See Vigneron's comments in this regard. If you have any objections or questions regarding the change, I would suggest that we take that discussion to the talk page of the item or to the talk page of the WikiProject Books. --Beat Estermann (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
in fact, I find it more explicit. I was only very surprised to see nothing about it on the Books wikiproject, and could not find other discussion about it, but it certainly is clearer about frbr structure :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible WikiProject for year discussionEdit

I have inquired at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Calendar Dates#Expand to cover year items? to see if that project would like to be a more enduring place to discuss and document the year-related discussions currently going on at Wikidata:Project chat. Since you have participated, I wanted to invite you to the discussion. Perhaps we shouldn't advertise the WikiProject in Project chat until a consensus emerges about whether the WikiProject wants to take on years or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Teatro alla Scala - Ingest of production dataEdit

Hello! I answer here to the question you asked me in my discussion page. I am using various sources: wikipedia articles, La Scala programmes and (mostly) the following books: Q52277762, Carlo Gatti, Il teatro alla Scala nella storia e nell'arte, 1778-1963 and Giampiero Tintori, La Scala 67-92. Spettacoli, personaggi, cronologia, opere, balletti e concerti. I spotted this database and I'm using it to check the information provided by Q52296182 in his book, since, as far as I understood it, the copyright of the database is not compatible with wikidata's and therefore data cannot be directly imported here. I am using La Scala website for the productions of the last years. Αππο (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Hallo Beat Estermann,
When you merge items, you may want to use the merge.js gadget from help page about merging. It helps with merging, gives the option to always keep the lower number (which is older, so preferable in most cases) and removes the need to file a request on Wikidata:Requests for deletions.
With regards,- cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 06:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

characters of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats (Q16323080)Edit

Hello Beat Estermann, I found some characters who are present in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats (Q16323080) (like Q55012377). Am I right that these are a mistake and can be deleted? Thank you for your work - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Valentina.Anitnelav: Thanks for pointing this out. These characters should not have imported. I've requested their deletion. --Beat Estermann (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Property proposalEdit

Dear Beat, I just want to draw your attention to my property proposal for a dramaturge. As you are/where active in uploading performing arts data, I wanted to ask your support for this proposal. Beireke1 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

musical workEdit

Hey Beat, I noticed a lot of alerts on Piano Sonata No. 14 (Q12008) because you changed musical composition (Q207628). I added the missing subclass. You might want to try a different approach. Multichill (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill: Hey Maarten, musical composition (Q207628) describes the activity/the art (composing), and not the product. "Sonata" is not a subclass of "composing". This interpretation is consistent with the definitions in "en", "de", "es", "fr", "it"; it is inconsistent though with the definitions in Danish, Esperanto, Galician, Norwegian. I did not check Bangla, Chinese, Japanese. Of course, we could switch it the other way round if you think it is less work to tidy up, but we should definitely not have an item describing both the activity and the product at the same time. When I made the change, I mistakenly assumed that the entry "musical composition" in the sense of the product was redundant with "musical work", which is not necessarily the case. But here again, we should adapt the definitions accordingly. Which way do you think is preferable if we want to fix this issue? --Beat Estermann (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Classic hatmaker problem? I would solve it like artworks. Here we have painter (Q1028181), art of painting (Q11629) and painting (Q3305213) all linked together. In your case that would be composer (Q36834), musical composition (Q207628) and musical work (Q2188189). Make it clearer what the activity is and what is produced. Noticed that the art of painting is a subclass of activity (Q1914636). You'll have to update quite a few items to point to the right item. Multichill (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: We need to check whether we also need an extra item for "small musical composition (= piece)" (de:Musikstück). - If there is one single Wikipedia that distinguishes between larger compositions (musical work, e.g. an opera) and smaller compositions (musical piece, e.g. an aria), we'll need that distinction anyways. In this case it might be easier to create a new item for the activity and to keep musical composition (Q207628) for the smaller composition. But then again, your example of "sonata" would not be a subclass of "piece" (at least in the classical understanding, where it designates a multi-movement work). --Beat Estermann (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, my example has three parts. You probably want to do some SPARQL queries to see how the different items are used and what kind of numbers you're getting yourself into. Multichill (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Q39892385 "drama"Edit

Please, check the Q39892385. I add the value Q15850590 in property "instance of". I do not know if it's right. I need your opinion. Without "instance of", "drama" entity seems problematic, and some users remove the statement (P136 "genre" + Q39892385) from entities where I have used it. Thank you Katikei (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense to me. Thanks. --Beat Estermann (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Beat Estermann. Do you think is OK merging Portia (Q55048970) and Portia (Q7231797)? I mean, usually different interpretations of the same character are conflated in the same item (examples: Tarzan (Q170241) and Count Dracula (Q3266236)). strakhov (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Strakhov: I think, in the longer run, we should definitely keep them apart to be able to properly describe the character roles (the opera character could for example take a voice type attribute). -- Cheers, Beat Estermann (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe that could be achieved using qualifiers. Anyway, while these separated items are among us... what property, in your opinion, would be the most adequate to link these items between them? strakhov (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean, since Wikipedia articles on characters aren't dedicated to specific interpretations but to the whole thing, we would need something like the "work vs edition hierarchy" applied to characters. strakhov (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov, Valentina.Anitnelav: So far, we are not talking about relationships of the type frbr:Work - frbr:Expression; let's leave that for another time. However, in the "Portia" example we are talking about the relationship of the type <frbr:Work> <based on> <frbr:Work>, in this case Tchaikovsky's opera "The Merchant of Venice" whose libretto is based on Shakespeare's play "The Merchant of Venice". Each of them define a fictional character "Portia". While there is no claim that the fictional universe created by Tchaikovsky and his librettist are exactly the same, we can nonetheless say that "Portia (Tchaikovsky)" is <based on> "Portia (Shakespeare)". That's exactly how the relationship has been expressed in the example. This said, I think we should remove the claim <said to be the same as> linking the two items.
On another note, but related to this discussion: We may see fictional characters that are inspired by real people. In this case, I have used <inspired by>, e.g. <Wilhelm Voigt (Q40025058)> <inspired by (P941)> <Wilhelm Voigt (Q62071).
--Cheers, Beat Estermann (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, this type of discussion should eventually be documented here: Wikidata:WikiProject_Performing_arts/Data_structure/Data_modelling_issues. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time yet to properly delve into all the open issues collected in the Google Doc that is linked on that page. --Beat Estermann (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Uhmm. At first there was no property used, then I tentatively added inspired by (P941) and finally @Valentina.Anitnelav: changed that for said to be the same as (P460). There are other properties to express similar relationships such as based on (P144) or edition or translation of (P629). I disagree with Portia (Q7231797) being 'only' the character in the Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice. Same way Tarzan (Q170241) does not represent (only) the character in Tarzan of the Apes (Q655296) but the character in subsequent novels, different interpretations of it in films, TV series and popular culture too (Tarzan as a general concept). So, IMHO, if keeping Portia (Q55048970) is deemed really necessary (that's a relatively big if), there's a structural need of a "main Portia item", with the rest being expressions/editions/whatever of it. Cheers. strakhov (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, isn't any fictional character either <inspired by> a real person, <based on> another fictional character (present in a work, in folk tales, oral tradition or whatever), or a new creation? - If you feel the urge to describe some proto-Portia that precedes Shakespeare's play, why don't you just create an item for it? - I would strongly advise against conflating fictional characters from various fictional universes into the same item, as this will become totally messy if we start adding further statements about them that are drawn from that specific fictional universe (age, married with, died at, etc.). The same applies to operatic characters, which - depending on the operatic work - may be associated with different voice types. And when we look at it from a different perspective: Whenever we say that an actor played a specific character, this character is specific to a play or a movie (and not some abstract idea of a Tarzan role or whatever). --Beat Estermann (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I agree (from a character-modelling point of view) with Beat Estermann that it is the cleanest approach to keep them distinct if one would want to describe their characteristics explicitly (and there already exist Wikipedia articles for adaptations of characters in different works, just think of Winnie the Pooh (Q188574)/Winnie the Pooh (Q1427030)). I added both said to be the same as (P460) and based on (P144) and removed inspired by (P941) for the following reason: Portia (Q55048970) is a direct adaptation of the Shakespeare Portia, not just inpired by it (other than Batman (Q2695156), who (according to his Wikidata item) seems to be inspired by Zorro (Q226822) and Count Dracula (Q3266236), besides other - but he is certainly not a direct adaptation thereof. It is not completely clear when to use based on (P144) and when inspired by (P941) but - as a rule of thumb - I use based on (P144) only for direct adaptations and inspired by (P941) for cases for some aspects of a person or character inspired the development of this character. The identity of fictional entities is a tricky issue - I used said to be the same as (P460) to express that Portia (Q55048970) is a means to import Portia (Q7231797) into the opera - from the point of (assumed) authorial intent and recognition by the audience. I don't think there is a structural need for a main "Portia"-item . I started to collect some rules of thumb (that are in no way intended to be fixed, yet - and I'm very happy for any input) related to this issue at Wikidata:WikiProject_Narration#Intertextuality- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I think that bear is a bad example, because the second version is pretty idiosyncratic and it's a pretty unusual case. Following that line of thinking we could split the 'Winnie the Pooh Disney Character' in items for every Winnie the Pooh Disney movie or series, because conflating them in that item is not a clean method (maybe in one episode is blue colored instead of orange). I do not care much if people invest their time doing this stuff (splitting items of characters and granulating concepts beyond practical reason... for the sake of cleanness), but IMHO there should be a common umbrella (main item) to keep track of these different movie/book/comic versions of the yellow/orange bear (and, maybe, one including the orange bear and the original literary animal, but since there's no common article... It wouldn't be that useful). Because it's a fact Wikipedia articles (when exhaustive) usually try to cover every manifestation of the character, and same thing can be said about Commons categories, which offer a general view of the character (operas, plays, paintings, graffitis and fan art) instead of the very first appearance only. strakhov (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: What is in "practical reason" and what not is a matter of interest. If the "adaptation history" (including adding characteristics typical of certain art forms - like voice types) of characters is within your interest it is quite practical to split them. Of course you would not need to create an own item just to express that an actor played that role.
As to your first point: Of course only notable (e.g. with respect to (pop)-cultural impact) versions have an own Wikipedia page, but I don't think that this makes it a bad example with respect to the point that there exist articles for character versions. You would not need an own item for each appearance of the Disney character, as they are all set in the same narrative world, in this case expressed quite clearly via collecting them in an own franchise. If the bear is blue colored in one film and orange in another this will not be "by accident" but as part of the narrative world (other than different versions of Dracula, where he has a son in one adaptation, unrelated to the original story).
Why would we need an "umbrella item"? If this is about sitelinks: just take the item for the original character (the original character is usually the focus of Wikipedia articles, different versions are mostly dealt with in an own paragraph, usually in the end of the article). If this is about extracting all character versions, one could just take the set of all items linked via said to be the same as (P460)/based on (P144); this set would represent your "abstract idea of the character".
This is not about just splitting items up for the sake of splitting them up, but I agree that this would be the way to go if one would want to model different representations/characterisations of a character (and differing voice types is, in my opinion, quite a good reason to create different items for different character versions). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: As said, if you want to split every appearance of Sherlock Holmes (I bet sooner or later there would be an ethnic Afroamerican Holmes, or a pink-haired steampunk Holmes, for example) .. just go for it, but please leave the "general item" as it is for people who don't wanna enter in such details (or are OK with storing them in qualifiers) and who want to link properly Wikipedia and Commons. Creating such unpractical mess of items in the end would be detrimental but, as said... Because one of the things why having items for characters is useful is for keeping track of their appearances across different works (are you aware of the existence of first appearance (P4584)? How does that property fit your model?), and this splitting-model is not making that easier.. And, Btw, what you propose wrt Commons and Wikipedia is something pretty similar to merging a work with its first edition: Something not very clean data-wise. strakhov (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: It seems that my opinion to keep Portia (Q55048970) and Portia (Q7231797) separate and that there is no need for an umbrella item covering both Portia (Q55048970) and Portia (Q7231797) does really bother you. Somehow this discussion is starting to get quite polemical (e.g. involving claims to be the one within "practical reason" and slippery slope arguments that some approach "logically" (is there some proof?) would lead to a certain development). This I did not intend by joining this discussing and it does not seem very helpful to me. I see that you are of the opinion that there exist some "abstract character" and that there should be a Wikipedia Wikidata item about it. That is fine. There exist different interests into and different concepts of fictional characters[1]. For some it is just a means to keep track of the roles of actors and others have a cultural interest in it. But I hope that it is possible to find a model without just "bashing" the other ones approach.
I thought about possibilities of using qualifiers to relate certain statements to certain appearances some time ago (see Wikidata:WikiProject_Narration#Qualifiers) and I still think it is a possibility, but not the only one and, as I already expressed, not the one I prefer. Why would an approach involving qualifiers be so much better than an approach using different items, especially as there already exist items for adaptations, due to existing Wikipedia articles?
As to your concerns of properly linking to Wikipedia and Commons: What problem do you see with just linking to the original version? You have a certain model of fictional characters, that is not the only possible one: Why do you think it is a good idea to represent different character versions as editions of a certain character work? Which kind of statements should this character work comprise? Who is the creator of the character work? The one who created the original version? Or all people who created any version? Would you also represent Tarzan novels and its cinematic adaptations as different editions of a "superior" work (currently Tarzan the Ape Man (Q262793) is modelled as an adaptation of Tarzan of the Apes (Q655296))?
As to your question if I am aware of first appearance (P4584) and how it fits into my model please have a look at Wikidata:WikiProject_Narration#Properties. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC) (written 14:53, 17. Apr. 2019, signed 20:57, 21 April 2019)
I do not intend to create such item because IMHO that item already exists (Portia (Q7231797)) and its relationship with Portia (Q55048970) should not imply both items are on the 'same level of thingness', but it should be a property implying hierarchical 'superiority' of the first one, in the lines of edition or translation of (P629). I don't know how much of a problem is conflating different versions of the same character in the same item (are you sure that can't be assessed with qualifiers?), but this approach is the one generally applied in wikidata items, wikipedia articles and wikimedia commons categories and AFAIK hasn't been contested so far. Same way I guess is not in the plans of Wikidata creating an individual item for "Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK, 1991 movie)" in order to express Gary Oldman played that role, instead of some abstract idea of that man. Cheers. strakhov (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that one would not need to create an individual item just in order to express that an actor played a certain role. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is where this model logically leads to... strakhov (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Beat Estermann".