User talk:Filceolaire/Archive 1

Active discussions

Welcome to Wikidata, Filceolaire!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. 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.

Regards, --Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of how we plan to use queries and inclusionEdit

Instead of filling up the Project chat with a text is more of a crash course about future features I write something here.

In point 1 it is not several items that point to a page on Wikipedia, it is the page using a prepared query that collects a set of items and includes them on the page or a page that explicitly pulls in information from a specific item. The items will not in either of those cases have information about the pages where they are used on Wikipedia.

How sitelinks are used is perhaps a little confusing, and makes the whole thing difficult to understand. They have two roles, the first one is to replace the langlinks used today (the magic interwiki links) and the second is to connect the item with the pages on Wikipedia in such a way that the pages can use sitelinks for default look-up. The default look-up can be overridden on any page by explicitly specifying the item. Use of the sitelinks for replacing langlinks is what we now prepare for Hungarian Wikipedia, and what would be done for the rest of the wikipedias in February.

In fact, the items collected in a query and presented on a page in Wikipedia might not have sitelinks at all. Imagine for example books from an author, none of them might be worthy a page on Wikipedia but they can still be defined in Wikidata. The list of books can then be included in the article about the author, and they will show up there, even if they don't have sitelinks.

There is a technical draft m:Wikidata/Notes/Inclusion syntax v0.3 that describes how we envision the client pages will pull in properties (information) from the repo items. Still note that this is about inclusion of information from single items, not about queries for building lists and tables. Jeblad (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jedblad. I think I understand now how this can work with 1-to-1 links for highly structured lists and tables.
  • WD has a page for each item in the list.
  • If any of these items has a WP page it gets an interlanglink.
  • If not then it is a WD page with no interlanglinks
  • This will require a change to notability policy to allow for WD pages with no corresponding WP page where needed to complete a list.
  • A separate WD page will have the links to the WP pages with the list/table.
  • WD pages for individual items will not have links to WP list/table pages even if it means the WD item pages end up with very few links.
  • Only 1-to-1 links are required to achieve this functionality.
This will work for a great majority of pages. For the corner cases where more is needed the ability to add links by hand will I suppose have to do.
Thank you again. Filceolaire (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Disambiguation pages task forceEdit

I created this task force so the guidelines which were conceived in the Discussion dont rot in the project Chat archive. If you could help expand and or link transfer to a better place were newcomers can profit from this it would be appreciated. Regards--Saehrimnir (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

your changes at Wikidata:Disambiguation_pages_task_force/guidelinesEdit

Hi Filceolaire! I've seen your changes at the guidelines and I would like to discuss them. I started the discussion here and I'm looking forward to your answer ;-) tia --Knopfkind (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again :) Can I also draw your attention to this section? Thanks --Knopfkind (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Property:P443 Pronunciation (sound file)Edit


The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. --  Docu  at 06:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edition dataEdit

I have expanded the RFC about references/sources to decide how to store edition data.--Micru (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Filceolaire, please take a look to my last comments after the Hackathon, if that is an acceptable solution we should aim to close the RFC on June 15.--Micru (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Wikidata's primary sorting propertyEdit

You recently participated in a deletion discussion for P107 - main type (GND). The discussion has been closed, as it is clear that a resolution won't come from PfD, and an RfC has been opened on the matter at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Primary sorting property. You are invited to participate there. Please note that this is a mass delivered message, and that I will not see any replies you leave on this page.

Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

'Bonnie anc Clyde' issueEdit

Hi Filceolaire, I wanted to ask you about a comment you made here:

I call this the Bonnie and Clyde (Q219937) problem. Some wikipedias have an article on Bonnie and Clyde while others have separate articles on Bonnie Parker (Q2319886) and Clyde Barrow (Q3320282). We have agreed that the devs will amend the software so we can link to redirect pages as well as linking to articles. This should, in most cases, solve this problem. Filceolaire (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's something I've been desperately looking for, as I'm trying to clean up interwiki language links between a good dozen of languages. And the same issue always comes back, without the possibility to add Redirects to Wikidata items, a lot of translation links go lost. So I would like to know a bit more about that comment you made. Do you know where that is/was being discussed, and when it will be executed? I can't seem to find it. Many thanks! --Midas02 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

located on terrain feature (P706) has been created...Edit can start using it now :) --Nightwish62 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Geology propertiesEdit

Hi Filceolaire! Do you have time to look at the following 3 proposals Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Stratigraphy. They will be helpful to sort out the stratigraphy items, find duplicates and source them. I'm having some trouble getting them reviewed. After these are sorted out I can prepare to connect fossils with strata which will be really exiting. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Global Economic MapEdit

The properties that you added are good for the project. I'm not sure about 'Holding', 'Shareholder' and 'Accounting rules' properties because they do not have a place in the project.

I have added all the properties that the project needs at this point. Mcnabber091 (talk)

New proprty "emigrated in" and "emigrated in date"Edit

Hi Filceolaire, I proposed these 2 properties. I agree with you: "emigrated to" will use point in time (P585) as qualifier for the related date.

Meanwhile, could you create the property "emigrated in"? obviously if you support the this property. I proposed this propery in July and no one was not favorable!

Thanks in advance LucaBiondi (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Filceolaire, yes i mean "emigrated to". for example: Rodolfo Valrentino is emigrated to United States.

Do you think i must improve the property proposal i wrote ? :-) thanks LucaBiondi (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the property proposal archiveEdit

Hi Filceolaire! Please don't make changes to the property proposal archive. Nobody is really going to see your supporting vote there and the top of the page has a "do not edit" template. I offered a hopefully better solution in the project chat. best wishes :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing Disambig from P107Edit


Please tell me why have you removed Disambig from the description of that property and from Template:Entities/text? --Michgrig (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it is not a GND main type. In the RFC on this it was agreed to use instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) instead to identify Disambiguation pages. Filceolaire (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

cause of destruction (P770)Edit

The property cause of destruction (P770) is available now. I saw that you participated in the discussion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hierarchy of administrative divisionsEdit

Hi Filceolaire, I read this sentence in your recent change to Help:Statements: "We use instance of (P31) to create a hierarchy of administrative divisions." In my understanding, "is a" by itself does not constitute a hierarchy; it is rather made by a succession of statements "located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)" in a set of larger encompassing entities.

Also I would appreciate if you could clarify when to use instance of (P31) vs. P132 (P132) for administrative divisions. Should we not use the most specific property if a dedicated one exists?

Thanks - LaddΩ chat ;) 02:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good clarification, thanks! You're right, every inhabited place is not an administrative division indeed :) - LaddΩ chat ;) 14:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

chapter (P792)Edit

The property chapter (P792) that you supported is available now. Please help out by reviewing other people's proposals.--Micru (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Property creatorEdit

Hi Filceolaire! You are a very active contributor to the property proposal pages. Would you like to request property creator rights? Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Other_rights#Property_creator --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I could also nominate you, if you would prefer that. all the best. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

significant event (P793)Edit

The property significant event (P793) is available now. I saw that you participated in the discussion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I try to propose a organized process to use significant event (P793) in it talk page: can you check and improve this draft ? I know you were strongly involved in the property proposal. Snipre (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


Do not close RFCs in which you are involved.

Thanks. --Izno (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

significant event (P793) for Cars/items ... use distribution (Q867147) or production (Q739302)Edit

Hi Filceolaire,

For cars and many other items distribution (Q867147) i think should be more correct that production (Q739302). Eg. for a car real production (Q739302) start and end before distribution (Q867147) (when you can buy the car) What do you think about?LucaBiondi (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Could be.
In practice it may be dificult to tell when distribution starts and finishes while production is more likely to be well defined. You can even include both if you have reliable sources. Filceolaire (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Global Economic Map property proposals submitted!Edit

How does it look and do we need to add the qualifiers to the list?

Mcnabber091 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

P766 (P766) and P540 (P540)Edit

Please comment Wikidata:Project_chat#Problem_with_2_properties about this definition problem. Snipre (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, can you provide a link for this edit that can testify consensus was reached? --Sannita - not just another sysop 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to insist, but I'd like to know when and where consensus was reached about your edit above. Given that I'm in favour of that, I just would like to add a footnote to confirm that that exception has been confirmed. --Sannita - not just another sysop 12:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

About Sea of Japan (Q27092)Edit

Please be careful if you are editing what you don't know well. Sea of Japan (Q27092) is between Korea and Japan-not with China.

See this

so, please change french description too. Thanks, by ReviDiscussSUL Info at 15:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

GDP by sector / Employment by sectorEdit

I'm not sure how the qualifier thing works yet.

For employment by sector there is a source that has about 10 sectors listed for employment. Another source divides the employment into 3 sectors. I feel like these two different sources should be different properties. Same goes for GDP by sector. One source divides GDP into 3 sectors while the another source divides GDP into more detailed sectors.

Thanks for your help.

Mcnabber091 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I got rid of the duplicate properties on the proposal page Mcnabber091 (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi Filceolaire,

I responded to your comment there and was wondering if you would re-consider your opposition. The property shouldn't interfere with any other properties you may be using. --  Docu  at 18:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have thought some more on this and I don't think this property is the best way to do this. See my comment on the property proposal page. Sorry. Filceolaire (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I do appreciate comments by users who actually try to build statements in one or the other.
You wrote it "should" work that way, but can we actually do it? Is there a working solution? Wouldn't it interfere with the way people use P31?
I'm not sure if you tried to work with the "constraint reports", but I think they work fairly well with the combination of P107 = geographical feature. We can derive this combination from Wikipedia and then proceed from there. Already a large number of items are already marked with that. Starting from there, we can gradually build statements. As we have to find a way to replace this use of P107, this new property could work for that. It doesn't assume users already put in place all other properties, nor would it interfere with other properties. An alternative would obviously be the coordinates, but I haven't seen the "empty" value work in a useful way. --  Docu  at 05:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you would respond to the above. If you merely oppose it because you don't intend to use it and can't provide a working alternative, it could be considered obstructionism. --  Docu  at 09:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Docu: That's not nice. Please assume good faith. I believe all my comments have been quite constructive.

While using 'class' in the way I suggested is a feature that we don't have yet boolean datatype is equally hypothetical. If you feel a Main Type like this is needed then you should be contributing to Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_from_GND_main_type#geographical_feature_.28Q618123.29.

If all of these discussions come to naught we can still label these items 'instance of:place on earth' or 'part of:earth'. No new property needed. Filceolaire (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Day pagesEdit

To make them more consistent, I was think about adding aliases and descriptions as in September 8 (Q2850). What do you think of it?--  Docu  at 05:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

New propertyEdit


One or several properties you proposed are now available: JSTOR article ID (P888) --  Docu  at 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Creating items with no sitelinksEdit

All of them have backlinks from other items for contains administrative territorial entity (P150), so they meet WD:N#3.

For souring task - this batch of run has already ended and I don't have a good tool to track all statements added by my bot and add qualifiers to them. Maybe I can do it in following runs, which will be from other sources. Liangent (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Is Slovenia a real place or is it part of Second lifeEdit

Hello, Filceolaire. You have new messages at Wikidata:Contact the development team#Is Slovenia a real place or is it part of Second life.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

has facility (P912)Edit

Hi! This property has been created now. You made a similar proposal (re.: Wikivoyage), and supported this one. Danrok (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Filceolaire (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk sometime?Edit

Would you be interested to Skype sometime soon? my Skype account is deleted. It would be cool if we could catch up and I could learn some things about Wikidata.Mcnabber091 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Order of MassEdit

User:Šárka Praha has removed all the interwiki links at en:Order of Mass except that to the Hebrew article. You will know better than I whether that action is good or bad. 19:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Using classes for property discussionsEdit

Hi, I think your idea of drafting a RfC about that is a good one, I also think it's a good idea to implement an example. The chess one (see project chat) is simple enough to be a toy example to play around with and be easoly set up and real enough to be a real application (from Wikidata to Wikipedia), why not playing around with this ? TomT0m (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Type of administrative divisionEdit

First of all, my current bot scripts don't work due to bugzilla:54313 / bugzilla:54959 and I don't bother to workaround it now and just want to wait for the fix (the original importer bot, which have already done all its work, did direct API calls, but its code is quite messy, and I'm not planning to work on it anymore).

About the division type, it's quite straightforward to derive that from Property:P442 and I can do that after the platform is "fixed". Transliteration is possible, but it may introduce mistakes (en:Heteronym (linguistics)), especially when it comes to place and person names. Another issue is that your suggested target is English label, not Romanization of text in original language label, and I think some text / words need to be translated, instead of being transliterated (eg. XX = XX village, not XXcun - and all village names here are suffixed with "村" in Chinese). The exact code to do this translation / transliteration needs some discussion. Liangent (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hrm but Q602778 ("cun" is translated into "village") or Q954362 ("cun" is omitted). Liangent (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
en:Category:Villages in China is a good category for you. Liangent (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi there! Given that there are few Portuguese-speaking Wikidatians around, would you mind weighting in on this proposal? Thanks. Pikolas (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You probably have edited without logging inEdit

See Special:Contributions/ Was it made by yourself?--GZWDer (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

WD:PFD comments about handednessEdit

I'd like you to reconsider your delete comments about the 'handedness'-related properties for deletion. Handedness does not imply armedness, and I'm not sure you considered that (seeing as you made the reason "per above"...). --Izno (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in my keep comments, armedness (which is really what the properties being considered for deletion are for) does not imply handedness. I could write with my left and play with my right. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I have opposition to seeing the two properties being merged with each other, but merging them both into handedness seems an incorrect choice. --Izno (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Izno: i raised a specific issue which I see as a problem if we have a bunch of different properties. If you want to convince me to change my vote you need to address the specific issue I raised. Your statement above doesn't even address this. Filceolaire (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Untrue. If they are semantically different, then they should not be merged, regardless of how many properties there are. And these three very much are; the notion of "handedness" is surely distinct from "playing hand" or "hockey hand", which are really relations about which arm a player prefers and not their hand (the fact that we call them "handedness" is a failure of language). Now, please reply to my point. --Izno (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Help:Sources/Items not needing sourcesEdit

Hi Filceolaire,
I'd like to mark Help:Sources/Items not needing sources for translation. However, I wonder if not better first to merge this page with Help:Sources. What do you think? Chrumps (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that adding all of the information in Help:Sources/Items not needing sources to Help:Sources would unbalance that article, which is why I created it as a separate article in the first place. Filceolaire (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

III. Restructure Wikidata itemsEdit

Thanks for your support at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links#III. Restructure Wikidata items. We need those changes to take place. JMK (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

total produced (P1092)Edit

Just created total produced (P1092). --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Can we reuse anything from DBpedia?Edit

I have closed the aforementioned RFC because of the lack of community participation. Regards, --Ricordisamoa 00:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


  1. Wikidata:Property proposal/ #league season (en) Can you make the new proposal? My english are not so good and you seem you know many thinks about properties.
@Xaris333: done. See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Event#Participant alias Candidate/Competitor - though it is the reverse property - i.e. a property to attach to an event that links back to the team/person. Filceolaire (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization#league season position (en) Can the proposal performance be used for organizations? Xaris333 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't see why not. If used as a qualifier for the 'Participant' property then the event item can list all the participants and the number of points each received. Filceolaire (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For the first: How can I used the reverse property to have a complete list of all the leaques took part in Real Madrid Club de Fútbol? And how to put the final place? The Competiton property (or participant) can be used on the leaques, not on the teams. Xaris333 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Xaris333: the tools for viewing reverse properties are not yet in place but there are lots of use cases for such tools and they will be available sometime in the next year or so I am sure. For example each book has an author, each film can have a list of actors but there isn't an easy way, yet, to get a list of the books written by an author or of the films that an actor appeared in. In the meantime we work at getting the data into the system. Tools for getting it out will come. Filceolaire (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. So if I put participant in 2012–13 La Liga with all the teams, in the future I can have that Real Madrid plays in 2012-13 La Liga. They only thing I just want (and I this is useful), is the place that every team got. How can I do this with performance? Can you give me an example? Xaris333 (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Xaris333:: yes. For performance just give the number of points each team got. There is probably a case for a "Ranking" property as well for 1st, 2nd etc. This could also be used for tennis and some other sports where there are official rankings that go into the hundreds. What other properties would a league report need?
  • Games played. Not needed because it can be calculated?
  • Games won
  • Games drawn
  • Games lost
  • Goals scored
  • Goals conceded
  • Goal difference. Not needed because it can be calculated?
  • Bonus points? I think that this a thing in some leagues.
I see that 2010 Major League Baseball season (Q1361383) has columns for Home Games Won/Lost and Away Games Won/Lost as well as some calculated rankings.

Does this make sense? Should we add these properties?Filceolaire (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We need

  • the performance (1st, 2nd, ...) But this must be different for the points. If 2 or more teams has the same points, how can we show which one take the highest place? And if a teams deducted some points, how can we show the final ranking? I mean with the deducted points, the team may lose ranking places.
  • games won (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • games drawn (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • games lost (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • goals scored (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • goals conceded (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • points (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • bonus points (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • points deducted (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • Maybe result as Qualification to the Champions Leauge 2014-2015.

For Games played and Goal difference we need to calculate automotically, if the other parameters are complete. If we have a parameter like point system (nowdays football has 3-1-0, before some decadies was 2-1-0 or 3-2-1), it can be calculate automotically the final points. How long you think we have to wait for all? Xaris333 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Improved Global Economic Map taskforceEdit

Hi Filceolaire, I wanted to thank your help last summer. I have reorganized the Global Economic Map taskforce property page here: There is also many new properties that I proposed here:

I thought you should also know that I have applied for a grant ( in the project and I am currently trying to generate community support. I have found a lead programmer who will make a bot to upload economic data into Wikidata according to the project. Thanks! Mcnabber091 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Football stadiumEdit

Hello. Pls compare Ammochostos Stadium (Q582868) with the template in w:en:Ammochostos Stadium. I put all the information on wikidata except Operator, Surface and Tenants. Are there properties for those items? And how coordinates can be linked like Emirates Stadium (Q163995)? Xaris333 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Forgot the above. Let's do more general work. Pls comment at User:Xaris333/Football. Xaris333 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification received?Edit

Hi Filceolaire, I have been testing the group notification for the books task force, did you by any chance get the notification about the new topic in the talk page? I have no way of knowing if it really worked :-/ --Micru (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Micru: I got the notification. Filceolaire (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming it :)--Micru (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mythological characterEdit

As you created Q16751053 I wonder if it isn't a duplicate with Q15410431? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right. I have created a duplicate. I'll see which is more linked to then merge. Thanks Ahoerstemeier. Filceolaire (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Structured Data Bee, vol. 1, issue 1Edit

Greetings, thank you for signing up for the Structured Data newsletter and its first edition. With this newsletter, the Structured data team plans on keeping you informed of technical progress, events, and communications to talk about the project, and continued information on how you can participate. This newsletter will be sent approximately every two weeks, and future editions will be translatable prior to publication. If you're new to Wikidata and want more information about how it works in relation to Wikimedia Commons, you can read an introduction to Wikidata for Commons being drafted.

Tech and designEdit

  • The software development for this process is still in the planning phases. The idea is to have some functional prototyping done for experimentation and feedback by the end of the year.
  • The initial roadmap for development has been posted on Commons. The roadmap is a rough outline and is open to iterations as the team learns where and when to focus its energies.
  • There is a page set up for design ideas about what structured data could potentially look like.
  • There are forthcoming requests for comment about the particulars of technical architecture on Keep an eye on the commons:Commons:Structured data/Get involved page for notification of when the RfCs are posted.

Events and chatsEdit

  • There was a week-long meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team, the Wikidata team, and community members, held in Berlin, Germany, at the office of Wikimedia Deutchland on October 6-10. You can read an overview of the event in on this page on Commons. There are also plenty of pictures available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • If you would like to read more detail about what was discussed, there are etherpads of notes taken for each day of the event.
  • The second IRC office hour (logs) was held on October 16, and the first (logs) on September 3.

Getting involvedEdit

  • You've signed up for the newsletter. That's a great first step!
  • While working prototypes are being developed, there is a drive to make all files contain machine-readable data on Wikimedia projects.
  • A hub has been launched to facilitate communication and documentation for this work.
  • There is a frequently-asked questions page that is finishing drafting and will need translated. Keep an eye out for when it is ready if you are interested in translating.
  • There will be active organization of the Get involved page as community participation is further organized. There will be work groups, similar to specific Wikiprojects, dedicated to particular aspects of structured data like licensing presentation, design, API performance, and even helping out with this newsletter and other community communications.

There will be much more information and activities around the proposal to develop structured data on Wikimedia Commons. This project is a major undertaking and an important step as the chief provider, repository, and curator of media for Wikimedia projects.

Thank you for your participation in such an extensive project, let me know if you're interested in participating in this newsletter. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

New propertiesEdit

Just created number of casualties (P1590). --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

and defendant (P1591) -Tobias1984 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
and prosecutor (P1592), defender (P1593), judge (P1594), charge (P1595), penalty (P1596) Tobias1984 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

consecrator (P1598)Edit

consecrator (P1598) is ready. Tobias1984 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Esperantist ID (P1601)Edit

Esperantist ID (P1601) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

number of cases (P1603)Edit

number of cases (P1603) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

New propertiesEdit

Dialnet author ID (P1607), Dialnet book ID (P1608), Dialnet journal ID (P1609), Dialnet article ID (P1610) are ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Some references on Deirdre (Q1183379)Edit

Salut Filceolaire, possibly you are the best person to add references to Deirdre (Q1183379) which you proposed as a showcase candidate. For now there is absolutely no reference to any statement, thus adding some refs is a necessary step forward. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 16:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

LaddΩ I have included a statement with property described by source (P1343). This is the primary source from which all the details are taken. Isn't that enough? Filceolaire (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Mmmm I believe WD generally require references on individual statements. According to Help:Sources#Books, the targets of described by source (P1343) need to be beefed up, then you can use stated in (P248) and page(s) (P304) and even P387 (P387) on statements. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 22:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
References added with links to the relevant books, chapters and quotations. What do you think? Filceolaire (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

BBC Things ID (P1617)Edit

BBC Things ID (P1617) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

date of official opening (P1619)Edit

date of official opening (P1619) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

detail map (P1621)Edit

detail map (P1621) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

has melody (P1625)Edit

has melody (P1625) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thai cultural heritage ID (P1626)Edit

Thai cultural heritage ID (P1626) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC) language code (P1627)Edit language code (P1627) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And already up for deletion: Wikidata:Properties for deletion#SIL code (P1627) --Closeapple (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Hallo Filceolaire,

If you were not already using it, you may want to check out the merge.js gadget for merging items. It has an option "Request deletion for extra items on RfD" to automatically nominate the page you are merging from for deletion. This way of nominating also makes it easier for the admins to process such requests. For support and other options you can check the help page about merging.

With regards, - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 10:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

unveiled by (P1656)Edit

unveiled by (P1656) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

MPAA film rating (P1657)Edit

MPAA film rating (P1657) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

has index case (P1660) has been createdEdit

I've created "has index case", let me know if I erred, this is my first property creation. :P --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

New propertiesEdit

Thank you for supporting ICD-10-PCS (P1690), operations and procedures key (OPS) (P1691), ICD-9-CM (P1692), Terminologia Embryologica (P1693), and Terminologia Histologica (P1694). --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons updateEdit


After a delay in updates to the Structured data on Commons project, I wanted to catch you up with what has been going on over the past three months. In short: The project is on hold, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening.

The meeting in Berlin in October provided the engineering teams with a lot to start on. Unfortunately the Structured Data on Commons project was put on hold not too long after this meeting. Development of the actual Structured data system for Commons will not begin until more resources can be allocated to it.

The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany have been working to improve the Wikidata query process on the back-end. This is designed to be a production-grade replacement of WikidataQuery integrated with search. The full project is described at will benefit the structured data project greatly since developing a high-level search for Commons is a desired goal of this project.

The Wikidata development team is working on the arbitrary access feature. Currently it's only possible to access items that are connected to the current page. So for example on Vincent van Gogh you can access the statements on Q5582, but you can't access these statements on Category:Vincent van Gogh or Creator:Vincent van Gogh. With arbitrary access enabled on Commons we no longer have this limitation. This opens up the possibility to use Wikidata data on Creator, Institution, Authority control and other templates instead of duplicating the data (what we do now). This will greatly enhance the usefulness of Wikidata for Commons.

To use the full potential of arbitrary access the Commons community needs to reimplement several templates in LUA. In LUA it's possible to use the local fields and fallback to Wikidata if it's not locally available. Help with this conversion is greatly appreciated. The different tasks are tracked in phabricator, see .

Volunteers are continuing to add data about artworks to Wikidata. Sometimes an institution website is used and sometimes data is being transfered from Commons to Wikidata. Wikidata now has almost 35.000 items about paintings. This is done as part of the WikiProject sum of all paintings. This helps us to learn how to d:Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structuremodel and refine metadata about artworks. Experience that will of course be very useful for Commons too.

Additionally, the metadata cleanup drive continues to produce results. The drive, which is intended to identify files missing {{Information}} or the like structured data fields and to add such fields when absent, has reduced the number of files missing information by almost 100,000 on Commons. You can help by looking for files with similarly-formatted description pages, and listing them at Commons:Bots/Work requests so that a bot can add the {{Information}} template on them.

At the Amsterdam Hackathon in November 2014, a couple of different models were developed about how artwork can be viewed on the web using structured data from Wikidata. You can browse two examples here and here. These examples can give you an idea of the kind of data that file pages have the potential to display on-wiki in the future.

The Structured Data project is a long-term one, and the volunteers and staff will continue working together to provide the structure and support in the back-end toward front-end development. There are still many things to do to help advance the project, and I hope to have more news for you in the near future. Contact me any time with questions, comments, concerns.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

university teacher (Q1622272)Edit

I noticed that you added "tenured" to university teacher (Q1622272). I just wanted to let you know that I removed it as many (if not most) people that have this under occupation on Wikidata don't have tenure but are/were university professors. Thanks, Hazmat2 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Hazmat2. I was trying to make a distinction between university teacher (Q1622272) and professor (Q121594) so that when people choose one of these as a profession they pick the right one. If you look at the names of the linked articles in other languages it is clear that for most of these languages there is a significant difference but I am not sure what the correct terms are in English for these differing concepts. Can you have a look at these two items and see what you think? Filceolaire (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It's tough to say what the difference is in English. Academic ranks are different in different countries, including all those that are English-speaking. In most cases in the United States, professor, university professor, and college professor can (and most often do) mean the same class of individual. In my experience, it's actually quite difficult to look at a listing of faculty from 50 years ago and determine who had tenure and who didn't. Just to make a point, my undergraduate degree (U.S.) was at a University, but some professors had only Master's degrees. My graduate degree was at an Ivy League university and only those with Ph.D. or M.D. degrees could even hold the title (similar to Commonwealth nations). My personal opinion would be to change university professor to professor with the description college or university academic position. I'm not sure what to do about the other except that it should probably be merged, unless professor can mean something other than that somewhere else. Hazmat2 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the two again, I think they should be merged. They both appear to describe what could most broadly be termed a professor" in the English language. Let me know what you think. Hazmat2 (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
These cannot be merged while there are so many languages which have separate articles for these two. I see that the Portugese article for university teacher (Q1622272) states that this corresponds to a "full professor" in the USA. Most of the articles linked have the title "Professor Catedratico" ("chaired professor") or similar. These articles seem to be describing a senior grade of professor which seems to be a subclass of the broad term "professor" covered by professor (Q121594).

Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority controlEdit

Thank you for supporting my propose! I withdrawn it to start new one (see next section, "RSL identifier"), more generic solution. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Site links to redirectsEdit

Hi Filceolaire, I noticed that you proposed allowing site links to redirects to help solve the "Bonnie & Clyde" problem several times, including Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects, Wikidata:Requests for comment/One vs. several sitelink-item correspondence and more recently Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sitelinks with fragments. On reading these again, I do not find the rebuttals of this proposal convincing. Do you know if there is any real reason that they are not allowed? Regards MSGJ (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ. There is a workaround that lets you add these now (change the redirect to an article, add the site link, change the article back to a redirect) but it is clumsy. I opened a feature request for this at [1] but it has been assigned low priority :( You can login to phabricator using your wikimedia login (bottom of the login page) and subscribe to this feature request and ask for it to get priority if you want :) Filceolaire (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I have subscribed. Do we know who assigned the priority level? This issue has been discussed so many times, it is crying out for some resolution. Like you, I think the redirect solution is probably the cleanest way to achieve it. (I've just noticed another RfC which has not been well attended yet.) Regards MSGJ (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Lydia ascribes priorities and I have never been able to influence her, or even get her to discuss these priorities :( Filceolaire (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do. On this particular topic please see my comment at --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Look at what you said in that comment Lydia. You state that you disagree and that therefore this will have a low priority but you do not address the particular issues raised nor how these issues will be addressed by arbitrary access. To me it looks like Wikidata users have never had the slightest influence on your priorities. That may be a wrong impression but it is the one you have conveyed to me. See also the various discussions on a "search (including sub-properties)" function. You may well be right. You may have a logical and irrefutable case for your strategy. I wouldn't know because you have never presented the slightest argument for it except to present what you have decided. That is ok. You are the leader of the dev team and get to decide the dev team priorities. I don't have the money to pay a developer nor the skills to do the work myself so I have to accept what you decide and I guess MSGJ will have to learn to do that too. Filceolaire (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
On the specific topic: Various people have said they have ideas how to solve it using arbitrary access. Projects are approaching me to get arbitrary access sooner for them so they can try. I think this was even in one of the RfCs. I don't want to prescribe how exactly it should be solved. I want to open up room for experimentation. This might well fail. Then we/I will have to reconsider.
About search: The Wikidata query service is intended to support some kind of property hierarchy. But I don't know how yet and to what extend because it's unclear how far we can technically get. We'll have to release a first version and see how it goes and then expand (as we usually do).
On the more general topic: I am constantly shifting around priorities based on user requests. This is probably not obvious. The smaller an issue is the easier it is for me to change its priority. I of course can't constantly shift the big priorities around. That'd be driving both the editing community as well as the developers crazy because no-one can have confidence in what I am telling them. Wikidata:Development plan is the big guiding picture that I try to stick to. It is build based on a lot of input from editors here, editors on other Wikimedia projects and 3rd parties and I hope largely reflecting what the project needs. If it is reflective of what the userbase wants then that also of course should not shift around massively. I hope that explains it a bit at least. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this response Lydia. I am sure you do have good reasons for everything you do. It's just not always obvious to me what those reasons are. I'm sure you have had discussions with projects about what priorities should be. It's just that I've never seen those discussions or had the chance to be part of them. Or maybe I have been in the discussion but we never got that final response from you saying how your plan related to the discussion.
I keep raising the "search (with subproperties)" function because a commitment to include (or definitely exclude) that function would heavily influence how I think we should create properties. If it is coming then we should get rid of meta-properties like significant event (P793) and we should have lots of specialised properties instead. If this function is not coming then we should have fewer properties and more use of qualifiers, even if they are harder for reusers to use. To me this seems like a strategic issue in that once we go down one way it looks to me like it will be difficult to change track later, especially for third parties who are depending on some stability in our properties. Editors here on Wikidata have been asking for this function since an RFC back in 2013. Right now there is a proposal in Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Properties_for_events_and_their_dates_and_locations for reorganisation of dozens of properties. How we decide this is, in my opinion, entirely dependent on what we expect to happen with this function and I don't even know if the developer responsible for queries has been asked to take this into consideration!
That is just how it seems to me. I do actually trust that you know what you are doing but I worry. Now I'm going to try and leave this for a few months until we have the results of your work on queries, as you requested. Good luck. Filceolaire (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


What's happened? :) --ValterVB (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Camera propertiesEdit

Exif model (P2009) and Exif make (P2010) are ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Filceolaire/Archive 1".