SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see Archive/. The latest archive is located at Archive/2024.
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, PKM!

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

re call to the bar edit

I have been thinking about this with regard to significant event, and I believe that we should be qualifying with applies to jurisdiction (P1001), and I have chosen for rather than England to use England and Wales (Q1156248), well at least for the historic records that I am doing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mapping relation type edit

Sorry not to have picked up your question at Project Chat earlier, re mapping relation type (P4390).

My honest answer is: I have no idea. I simply don't know what sort of relations should be considered close match (Q39893184). It is good to have clarified that the match is not exact match, broader match, or narrower match. What does that leave? close match (Q39893184) and related match (Q39894604). What do these mean? The platypus/eggs example [1] given by w3.org for related match (Q39894604) seems a lot more distant; but might be right.

It would be useful to find some more examples of close match (Q39893184) in the wild, in professionally-made thesauruses, to get a better idea of how exactly it is customarily used -- what sort of relationships, that aren't superset/subset/exact match.

Pinging @Vladimir Alexiev, Jneubert: who I think have rather deeper experience in this area. Jheald (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jheald: Example of closeMatch: some Peoples to their Culture or Language (AAT has more Cultures than WD). relatedMatch is just any associative relation, like skos:related but between thesauri --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply


Sorry, too, for having missed your question, and thanks to Jheald for pinging.
If I got you right, you interpret AATs S-Twist as a class, and you want to make clear that this is differerent from the intended use of S-twist (Q55296333) as a property value. Well, if your interpretation of AAT is right (I'm no AAT expert), that could be done, but I'm not sure if it's worth the hazzle: Apparently, both seem to designate the same thing, and I wouldn't expect that the subtle distinction really helps users who come across the external id entry. -- But this is my personal take on the example.
As for the more general question about the use of "close match" and "related match": They may cover diverse cases, and often the descision if something is the same or close or broder/narrower or related can be disputed. Examples of the use of mapping relation type (P4390) exist in an ongoing and still quite incomplete approach of mapping STW Thesaurus for Economics (Q26903352) to Wikidata. For maintenance, I've created a list of all non-exact relationships (with a link to search Wikidata for possible newly introduced better matches). Sometimes differences between the Wikidata item and the external concept are subtle, sometimes obvious. E.g., Wikidatas Yugoslavia (Q36704) covers, according to its English description, the "1918–1992 country", while the close-matching STW descriptor is Yugoslavia (until 1990). An example for "related match" is the item Assessment center (Q265558), to which STW's Executive selection is related. It's clearly not the same, and it is not of the same kind, too (instrument vs. process), so I wouldn't use "close match" here, but of course literature about Executive selection also covers the Assesment Centers as a prominent means, so the link should be helpful here. -- Hope this helps a bit. I'm happy to discuss more, here or at Property_talk:P3911 (or on the talk pages of mapped items, if only one item is concerned). Jneubert (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jheald, Jneubert: Thank you both for your responses. You have confirmed my general understanding of the use of "close match"; thanks for that. As far as this specific item is concerned, I am probably overthinking things (again), but yes, we have been using AAT as guide or proxy for a class hierarchy of fashion objects, lacking any other. - PKM (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

complete edition (Q16968990) and complete works (Q1978454) edit

Did you check the only available sitelink before completely repurposing complete edition (Q16968990)? de:Gesamtausgabe refers to a book that collects all literary "completed works" (de:Gesamtwerk included in complete works (Q1978454)) of an author. Thanks to your edits, the item has currently no correlation with the only sitelink contained in it. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Andreasmperu: Sorry to have caused this problem. Can you suggest a better way to separate "complete works" and "collected works" since they are not the same thing? I know that the labels in some languages on "collected works" translate literally "complete works" (probably based on the translations in the Getty AAT. Would you suggest moving the site link, or some other solution?

- PKM (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Gesamtausgabe literally translates as "complete edition", whereas Gesamtwerk refers to "complete works". No idea who came out with the label "collected works", but it is not precise (although it could be clarified in the descriptions). complete edition (Q16968990) should be a subclass of an edition or a book, i.e. literary works of an author collected in one place. That is why complete edition (Q16968990) used to be a subclass of book, but also a subclass of complete works (Q1978454) (this item is not just limited to literary works, but could be anything created by one single person). Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Andreasmperu: I will revert my changes then, and change the English label. Based on your explanation, it seems to me that the AAT link should be moved to "complete works" which totally resolves the problem of these things "said to be the same". Would you agree? - PKM (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Further - based on the structure at Wikidata:WikiProject Books, complete edition (Q16968990) should be a subclass of version, edition or translation (Q3331189) rather than "complete works" - "works" (the intellectual content} and "books" (the publications that house works) are separate hierarchies. Would you be okay with that change? (It would be consistent with limited edition (Q6549529), historical-critical edition (Q680458) and diplomatic edition (Q5394558).) - PKM (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I’ve just checked the FRBR ontology, and realised that both “collected works” and “complete works” mentioned in there refer to a collection of literary works, whereas in the case of Wikidata items only complete edition (Q16968990) is circumscribed to literary works (complete works (Q1978454) deals about all possible works including literary ones, but also musical ones for instance). So, no I don’t think the exact match of Complete Works is correct as it is now, but it should rather be with complete edition (Q16968990), even though the label seems to point the relation into the other item. Maybe a solution would be to have the same label for both items, given that “complete edition” doesn’t sound that familiar in English (I might be wrong on this, of course), and make the distinction on the descriptions. A new item that corresponds with “collected works” (only literary ones) would need to be created to match the FRBR ontology, because currently there is no equivalent.
As for your second point, yes, I agree. Edition is closer to the meaning. --Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 15:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Andreasmperu:. Good points. FaBio, the FRBR ontology has "complete works" = "A collection of all the literary or scholastic works of a single person", but you're right, not including music or drawings or whatever. Your proposal sounds good - please go ahead and make those changes, since you seem pretty clear on what you want it to look like. And I agree, "complete works" with aliases "collected works", "complete edition" sounds good to me. - PKM (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A digital map resource edit

Might I also bring FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation) (Q57841357) to your attention? It's a beautiful digital resource for maps (to those like me who find maps beautiful). I only wish I knew how to employ its data here. -Trilotat (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! - PKM (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

motif (Q1229071) items edit

Hi, looking at User:PKM/Motifs I don't think we should have "motif of thing X" items like bird (Q64225319) (AAT 300375751 also looks like bad design to me), deer (Q64435043), dog (Q64434591), duck (Q64431956) etc. Following that approach we'd need a new separate item for everything appearing in a motif we want to describe. I'm afraid this in the end harms maintainability and data quality. I'd rather use bird (Q5113), deer (Q29838690), dog (Q144), duck (Q3736439) etc. directly, for example as value of has pattern (P5422). Do I miss big problems with that, contexts where this doesn't work? Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Marsupium: this is a good point to think about. My take is that, ontologically, the properties that appertain to a plant or an animal are different than the properties that apply to a motif (where I hope eventually to be able to add "country of origin/indigenous to", etc.).
Your proposal might well work for dog, bird, horse, and the other cases where we have an item for the "generic" animal separate from the taxon. But I think we'd have problems with "djeiran" since all we have is Gazella subgutturosa (Q460977) and clearly, the pattern doesn't represent a taxon. And a number of ancient and widespread motifs like "palmette" may represent palm leaves in origin, but have a standardized shape and use that is nothing like a palm leaf.
Structurally I like the idea of "bird (motif)" <motif represents> "bird (winged tetrapod)" and <has subclass> "heraldic bird". If anything, I think having a class of artistic motifs fixes the disconnect between our dozens of heraldic figures and the real or imaginary concepts on which they are based. I did take my original cue from AAT on this - in fact, I am rather surprised at how limited their tree is in this area - but I certainly don't think they are always right or even logical. Of course this opens up the possibility of people selecting the wrong "bird" item, but that's a problem we have throughout Wikidata between processes/products, institutions/buildings, cities (places)/cities (administrative units), and so on.
As far as adding motifs, at this point I am only adding them as I need to use them. - PKM (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ontology for dresses edit

Hi PKM, I'm trying to clean up the ontology for dresses in Wikidata and it would be great to have your insights on that. We might be doing a Wiki project with the Met's Costume Institute, and before doing a mass upload of content it would be great to talk to folks like you who have done most of the hard work in textiles and fashion. Thanks! -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Fuzheado: I’m definitely interested in that! Let me know how you want to connect (pretty much anything except IRC...). What we have now is based on the Europeana Fashion Thesaurus and AAT, but they have gaps, especially around historical styles, and in many cases Wikipedias are far more granular. - - PKM (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fuzheado: This list of dresses may be useful. I need to figure out why the aliases don't appear ... :-) - PKM (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fuzheado: My early attempt to distinguish between "dress" and "gown" was misguided in retrospect. I think everything tagged as <subclass of> gown (Q1036729) should be moved up to subclass of dress (Q200539). I'll do it if you have no objections. - PKM (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ontology / Vocabulary for Fashion edit

Hi PKM! I've been wanting to introduce myself for a while. I've been working on a project for years now related to metadata for fashion objects, and I'd love to join the collaboration around fashion related wikidata. I'm just not sure quite where to begin. I noticed that you'll be participating remotely in the Met Edit-a-thon this Saturday, and I will be as well. Is there a time that we could chat, perhaps before then? I could share some of my previous/current work and I'd love your advice about how to get involved. Arkirkland (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Arkirkland: absolutely! I'd love to have someone to bounce this stuff around with, especially way down in the weeds. You can see what we've been working on for the last couple of years at Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion (do sign up!). I'm available to chat online or by video conference or phone most afternoons California time (and you can find me in the Wikidata Facebook and Telegram channels as well, or via email). Let me know what works for you. - PKM (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Arkirkland: I'll be joining the edit-a-then a bit late, but hope to hook up virtually! - PKM (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@PKM: Great! I'm sorry I wasn't able to reach out again before now, but I've been sick the last couple of days. But hopefully we can connect this afternoon! - Arkirkland (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

New page for catalogues edit

Hi, I created a new page for collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to expand, use for property creation. Best, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

SILKNOW edit

Hey, I've stumbled upon http://silknow.eu/. I guess you'll already know it, but perhaps not. Also it doesn't look very fruitful for Wikidata to me, but you will know better! I think there isn't any object data online (yet), but there is a thesaurus (incompletely translated from Spanish): http://skosmos.silknow.org/en/ which seems to be a refinement of some AAT classes. I got the impression, it doesn't model hierarchies (well) though. Just in case it's of any use for us … Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Marsupium: thank you! I wasn’t aware of that project. - PKM (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Q57321000 edit

PKM, You duplicated King Mark and La Belle Iseult (Q19825938) to create King Mark and La Belle Iseult (Q57321000). I can not figure out why? I was just about to merge them, but I figured I should check. --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commons - Media Search edit

Greetings,

The Structured Data team is working on an alternative, image-focused prototype for media search on Commons. The prototype uses categories, structured data as well as wikitext from Commons, and Wikidata to find its results. The development team would like your feedback on the prototype, as they are looking to work to further enhance the search experience on Commons. If you have a moment, please look over the project page set up on Commons to find a link to the prototype and leave your feedback on the talk page. Thanks for your time, I'll be posting message similar to this one to other pages on Commons. The team is looking forward to reading what you think. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hirsch & Drecoll edit

This stuff is a mess on Commons and Wikdata. I have been trying to clean up as I go, but it is tough going. You have properly zeroed in on the work by the women, which remain extremely hard to track down. From what I have gathered since scanning numerous pages on archive websites in Dutch (all of which concern themselves mostly with the building in Amsterdam, which still exists), this is what still needs to be done: 1) each location was its own separate fashion house (so our modern idea of international franchises is really not applicable to any of them). 2) It is not clear to who was the head designer who drew the illustrations of dresses and who was the designer who created the dresses (for any location!). In archives, Marguerite Wagner is listed as a floor manager of the Amsterdam building pre-1895 and post-1895 she is in Paris running the Drecoll fashion house, financed by Kahn & Berg. 3) The Drecoll item needs to be split to the one founded by Drecoll and the one founded by Wagner duo. 4) The Hirsch Brussels item (which I created yesterday) needs to be fleshed out with some illustrations from Brussels (there is a book and I made an item for that too, but I have no access to it). For the Kahn & Berg team, Kahn was the fabric man and Berg was the investor/businessman. It appears Berg's sister, who was married to Kahn, was both model and designer. Marguerite Wagner met her husband in Brussels and probably followed Kahn & Berg soon after 1873 to Amsterdam around the same time. I can't even find out whether they married in Brussels or Amsterdam. They were in any case, a duo and signed works M et Mme Wagner. They moved to Paris after Berg bought the Drecoll name, and their reliance on the fabrics of Kahn are indicated by Kahn's increasing presence in Paris. The Kahn-Berg families lived in Heemstede (very close to where I live!) but nothing remains of their homes. When I have more time I will try to find more for you - meanwhile I followed Femke Knoop on Twitter who has a fashion history blog wrote that book on the Amsterdam fashion house. Jane023 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jane023: Yes it's quite complicated. Do you have Wikipedia Library access to Christoph Drecoll: Rediscovering the Viennese Worth (Q96205711)? They state that Marguerite Wagner was the lead designer in the Vienna establishment from the Drecoll purchase in 1895, then started the Paris "branch" in 1902 (which was changed to a separate joint-stock company based in London (!) in 1908 before the Vienna branch was sold off in 1909). I haven't captured all of that in the article, but I have added the two other companies Christoph Drecoll founded. The problem with separating the Vienna and Paris pieces into two businesses is that the labels "Drecoll - Wien - Paris" on items in museums could belong to either one. Perhaps best to model the existing "Drecoll" item from 1895-1908/9, with successor companies as the London/Paris company from 1908 and the spun-off Vienna company from 1909-1937. Of course it's not certain that the German researchers who wrote the Costume article have everything exactly right, especially if they don't have access to all the Dutch records. FWIW, French Wikipedia gives Marguerite de Wagner's maiden name as "Margharita Van Speybrouck" but I don't know where they got that - it's not in the citation. I am also very curious about the "Besançon" name - clearly the Wagners used it, but their daughter's wedding announcement says she married "Pierre Besançon"[2]. I have seen this interpreted as he took her name, or that "Marguerite de Besançon-Wagner" should only refer to the daughter AKA Maggy Rouff, and not to the mother. It is, as the authors of the Costume article acknowledge (and you have confirmed) a mess.
Thanks for continuing to work with this. All we can do is record what various sources say, and model the results as best we can. - PKM (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes you got me involved, so it's another ball to juggle for me going forward. I have seen the Van Speybrouck name pretty often and that could be a very good lead. My biggest confusion was about who a "floor manager" in Amsterdam might be managing if she didn't speak the lingo, but that name implies bi-lingualism. With painter families you can trace the women through portraits disguised as genre paintings, but with fashion designers I have no idea! I thought it was very interesting to read that Christoph Drecoll made a name through costume design and royalty - travelling shows and masquerade balls were very big at the close of the 19th century and are also under-documented. There could be clues there as well. Jane023 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Woodworking Tools at Mercer Museum edit

Thank you for your discussion at Oct 21st WikiWednesday NYC meet-up. You mentioned there is the need for greater coverage for woodworking tools. I gather this is not your current area of interest. If you know anyone working in on this topic, let me suggest they refer to the w:Mercer Museum. The museum contains a collection of American tools and a research library. - DutchTreat (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that link! It was great chatting with you at the meet-up. - PKM (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

coating edit

Hello, I fail to see the crucial difference between coating (Q54834134) and coating (Q97936647). Could you either point it out more clearly and remove Art & Architecture Thesaurus ID (P1014)300053772 from one of them or merge them? Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC) @Marsupium: Thanks for catching that. I merged them. - PKM (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! --Marsupium (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

non-Wikimedia Wikimedia disambiguation pages edit

Can this be legitimate? Does this external site have a Wikimedia disambiguation page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC) @EncycloPetey:, no, that's me being sloppy. Thanks for catching that. Moved to moss (Q25347). - PKM (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

St[.] Leger edit

Just informed the creator of the item. May you check my edits as well? #tia. Klaas `Z4␟` V08:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The English miniature (Q107140614) edit

I added an item for the book we both have and I also noticed you had already made an item for another one. Then I saw that there was a slightly older one as a borrowable book in archive.org. That may be best since you can link to pages as references. I linked all three from the item for Roy Strong (Q12070184) using notable work (P800). Jane023 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jane023: That's a great catch! We should definitely add that last a reference/catalog. Volume I (the text volume) of Strong's Tudor and Jacobean Portraits (Q63148016) is also online and has some miniatures, but it's from the '60s and rather out of date.
When it comes to art reference books or catalogs, they key is not how up-to-date it is, but how often it is referenced by others. It enriches the documentation of an item when you can link to source text available online. Jane023 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've done a first pass through all the Hilliards in Wikidata, and now I am adding more from Commons. Here's my work list.
I should add more significant works to Roy Strong. Another item for the to-do list! - PKM (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
nice! Jane023 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Jane023: Also at Internet Archive: Strong's The cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan portraiture and pageantry (Q107141727) (1986 US printing of 1977 work). - PKM (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Now you can see why I don't generally bother with creating separate items for editions, because I just want to reuse the illustration or catalog numbers in catalog code (P528) and don't care about which edition it is. Jane023 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Jane023: You have a point ... - PKM (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

present in work (P1441) edit

Hi please see Property talk:P1441 for the latest discussion on broadening the usage to include non-fictional humans. Apparently you started the discussion there to create this property, but I don't understand the constraint for use with fictional humans. Thanks in advance! Jane023 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

(±)-limonene (Q70923673) edit

Just to let you know: Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q70923673 --Leyo 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

motif items edit

Hi PKM, I noticed that you took care of a lot of motif items in the visual arts. Do you have some kind of model you follow? Maybe some model item? Currently I'm working on items for narrative motifs and I think it would be helpful if motifs in the visual arts and in narratives are modelled similarly (where sensible, of course). Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Motifs are still very inconsistent. Properties that I use where possible are Iconclass notation (P1256), Art & Architecture Thesaurus ID (P1014), and motif represents (P6875). Iconclass notation (P1256) especially should work for some narrative motifs, I would think. Good luck! PKM (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

heraldic motif (Q56192108) edit

Hello PKM , what for is this item? Actually no article or category is linked. Or do you think to use it for sthg like Commons:Category:Mobile charges in heraldry by subject or can we delete it? Regards --W like wiki (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since it has an entry in the Getty Art & Architecture thesaurus, I would rather not. Instead, I think items like charge (Q1424805) should be <subclass of> 'heraldic motif' rather than plain old 'motif'. I can change those soon if you'd like. - PKM (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Stone tools edit

Hi,

I will import (with OpenRefine) some stone tools but I'm not exactly familiar with the terminology for them and I noticed some strange items.

Could you help me by any chance? At the very least, I'm wondering about some items you created that look like duplicates (chopper (Q111361795) and chopper (Q11728731) for instance).

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@VIGNERON en résidence I've merged chopper (Q111361795) and chopper (Q11728731); thanks for catching those!
I am very happy to help - let me know if you run into any more odd items. PKM (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks.
I also noticed there has been some mix-up retouching (Q2146489) and retouching (Q127233) and also stone tool (Q479257) and industry (Q645143) (it was the same label in French, I changed it for the first one but it's still the same in other languages).
Finally, I'll probably do an import for ~200 objects later this week, I'll let you know so you may have a look if everything is alright or not.
Cdlt, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@VIGNERON en résidence retouching (Q2146489) and retouching (Q127233) are both "retouching" in English. I will follow the DE wiki sitelinks and sort them out. PKM (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also retouching (Q14257460)! PKM (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Now:
That was fun! Moving on to stone tools, lithic technology, etc. PKM (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've used "category combines topics" on Category:Lithics (Q8598885), since in some wikis it does.
I think stone tool (Q479257) and industry (Q645143) are better now. PKM (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi again,
Here are the 198 prehistoric objects in the permanent exhibition of the Museum : https://w.wiki/6SVU
It still a bit rough right now, I will improve them and at least import all the images at some point. I'll take any comment or remark you may have ;)
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@VIGNERON en résidence Great! I will add English labels and let you know of any questions. PKM (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@VIGNERON en résidence Is Chopping-tool (2003.0070.1) (Q117108111) an ensemble of tools, or a single tool within an ensemble? If it's a single tool you might want to change the P31. PKM (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Same thing for all the items with inv numbers D2003.0004.x - I would make a "parent" item for the ensemble D2003.0004, and then make the individual armatures "part of" that parent ensemble, with their own P31s.
I have also added "armature" as an alias on projectile point (Q2308299) in both French and English. I have used "projectile point" for the English titles since that seems to be the most common English term. We could probably add shape=scalene triangle (Q4897191) on the Armature scalène items. What do you think? - PKM (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
More tomorrow … PKM (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wow, thanks a lot already (espcially for the label translation).
Thanks a lot also for the questions. Here some quick answers already:
  • Chopping-tool (2003.0070.1) (Q117108111) is a single tool, and from what I see it's not in any ensemble but I'll check that (there is definitely some ensemble for other objects and I forgot a bit about that, thanks for raising that point).
  • this is not exactly how the inventory numbers works in France. A number AAA.BBBB.CCC is not necesserally an ensemble and when it is an ensemble, the parts are numbers AAA.BBB.CCC.DDD (with a fourth part). Most items are about single objects (sometimes belonging to a set, again I need to check that).
  • yeah, the "armature" problably need some rework.
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for clarifying on the inventory numbers.
I have updated the English description for prehistoric tools (Q3358632). I think I misunderstood how you intend to use that.
more later… PKM (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I see that I forgot to add the museum identifier (Museum of Brittany collections ID (P4313)), it's done now (so you can look what the objects look like and sometimes see a bit more information). Next step is adding the pictures and asking for more review (if you know any specialists, feel free to share it). For prehistoric tools (Q3358632), basically, I used it as a general values when I didn't find a better value (or if I was unsure).
Also, for your information, I tried to do a dataviz on these data here: User:VIGNERON en résidence/test (you can see the width and height of each objects, colored by time period and shape by type of object ; at least I see that the width and height are consistent and correlated, apparently there is also a strong correlation for size and period, there is some low correlation for the type but there is a bug in the legend, I need to look at that before - and to double-check and clean the data, obviously - sharing this page very broadly).
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
We do have chopper (Q11728731) which you might use for Chopping-tool (2003.0070.1) (Q117108111). PKM (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, Pactols has an item for “armature” [3] separate from “projectile point” so probably we should make that a separate item instead of an alias. I’m not sure their English translation “implement” is perfect. Let me do some research on that and then I’ll make a new item. PKM (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
PKM (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
For Museum of Brittany collections ID (P4313), it is a known problem (I thought it was solved but apparently not, I'll let the IT guys know the problem is back...).
Thanks for the new items, I already used them ! I'm not a specialist but I'm not sure we really need "Lamelle à troncatures" (at least not for my data).
I added some pictures that where already on Commons (an old import back in 2015). I'll do a mass import next week (or the one after that).
I'm a bit confused by some data from the Museum database, I've ask some colleague for precisions (for instance, is there a real distinction between Chopping-tool Chopping-tool (2003.0070.1) (Q117108111) and Chopper Chopper (D2003.0002.5) (Q117108142) ?) and some data roundtripping. I already had a confirmation that (despite its strange name) Racloir and scraper (919.0042.4.1) (Q117108082) is one and only one objet.
A last question : this article Données nouvelles sur le gisement paléolithique moyen de Piégu (Pléneuf-Val-André, Côtes-du-Nord) (Q112340743) has a drawing picture of Levallois point (D2003.0002.43) (Q117108214). Do you have any idea how to indicate that? (@Richard Nevell: for this last question).
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
How about described by source (P1343) qualified with section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) = “figure N, no. X”? PKM (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Maybe a bit too broad but it will suffice for now. Done for the 13 concerned stones. Thanks. Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@VIGNERON en résidence perhaps Denticulate tool (D2003.0002.20) (Q117108172) should have P31 = denticulate tool (Q5259486)? PKM (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Done (as well as choppers and chopping tool).
I've also add some length (that strangely are hight in our database).
I'll try to import the images next week and I think it should be mostly good. Thanks again for your precious help (and obviously feel free to do more comments if you wish so). Cdlt, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for inviting me to play! This was really fun. I found a glossary of stone-knapping terms in multiple languages, so I may be improving items over time. PKM (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

impression (Q113609387) edit

I saw you changed the description of this item to refer to the product, rather than the process, of a print run. That's fine, but a lot of the statements on the item (and one on first printing (Q113610004)) described the process, not the product. I've just revised the statements to match the new description. Just a reminder, when you change the meaning of an item, to make sure all the statements and links are still valid after. Swpb (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that. PKM (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. 2023

GEMET translations edit

Hi PKM,

I've noticed some issues with the translations from GEMET. May you please stop importing them for a while?

Kind regards U. M. Owen (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your feedback on GEMET translations. If you disagree with a label provided by GEMET, please provide a better or more idiomatic one (you can help!) and retain the GEMET label as an alias, since it is obviously used with that meaning in some circumstances.
Your comment "1456 mixes melioration in languages with socialist history with clean-up in others: These are different concepts" is rather odd; Wiktionary gives a second meaning of "land reclamation" for Serbo-Croation melioracija, for one quick example. - PKM (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Since you are referring to prior comments I would like to keep the discussion at one place. Melioration went through a semantic change (Q1939117) in most languages. hr:Melioracija is key to understand it.
Do you have personal contact to the program manager(s) at EIONET to clarify translation issues?--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The translations are (apparently) provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union as described here. I do not have any personal contacts at either organization.
In regards to "semantic shifts", in general I believe is it helpful to have older terms and older forms of terms as aliases in Wikidata since we work with the entire span of history - a common case is linking older scholarly articles to their main subjects, which may not use the current accepted terminology.
@AdamSeattle, I know you have done work with the GEMET dataset - do you have thoughts on the issues raised here? PKM (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@PKM, I agree with you. In WD we are recording the terminology as found in a controlled vocabulary/thesaurus. So I think it's perfectly correct to provide translated terms found in GEMET, since in that vocabulary they are considered equivalent terms. It makes sense to add that as a label or at the very least, as an alias. AdamSeattle (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AdamSeattle, PKM: Would you give native speakers the liberty to delete translations which must be erroneous?--U. M. Owen (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@U. M. Owen: The answer to your question of what I would do is "it depends". Of course the knowledge of native speakers is important; I delete English labels and aliases that are grammatically incorrect or misspelled, or that properly belong to a subclass of the item in question.
But who decides what is "erroneous"? To quote Wikidata:Verifiability "Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world, but a secondary knowledge base that collects and links to references to such knowledge."
In this context, an individual editor may be familiar with some usages of a word, but not specific usages in knowledge domains where they are not experts. I will quote Help:label:
It was recognized very early on in the conception of this project that people with strong points of view might try and shift Wikidata labels, descriptions, and even data points to fit their own point of view. Wikidata is not a forum for pushing points of view, and should try to reflect information both accurately and neutrally. Edit warring over labels is not acceptable.
In the particular case of GEMET, it is a reliable source for information in the field of ecology (or Wikidata users would not have approved adding a property for it). The tool I use to import these labels does not overwrite any existing labels; if the GEMET label is different it is added as an alias. GEMET also gives "exact match" links to other databases including EUROVOC and AGROVOC (which may use other labels for the same concepts), and where it does this I try to add those labels/aliases as well.
I am all in favor of native speakers adding new, more common or widely used labels and moving existing labels to aliases; I am not in favor of removing a label and leaving the field blank, which makes it harder for other editors to find and improve the item.
And I try to respect well-regarded or widely-used databases even when I think their choices are questionable. By including their labels as aliases, I feel like we're improving the usefulness of Wikidata because that's how people relying on those databases may search.
cc: @AdamSeattle. - PKM (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Morgan Library MS M. 890 edit

Hi PKM! I love that you do so much work around manuscripts and that you're so thourough in modelling them! Fountains Abbey bestiary (Q77464717) really is a good showcase. I just have a few general concerns/questions:

  1. Regarding instance of (P31): I would like to keep this property as clean and specific as possible. Fountains Abbey bestiary (Q77464717)instance of (P31)bestiary (Q830560) to me seems redundant to genre (P136)bestiary (Q830560). instance of (P31)illuminated manuscript (Q48498) should be the only P31 statement for manuscripts of this class.
  2. inception (P571) (Q77464717#P571) seems fine to me, I just don't understand why it is qualified as sourcing circumstances (P1480)circa (Q5727902). I think for manuscripts which are dated to a specific time period (which you have specified with qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582)) we don't really need this.
  3. script style (P9302) (Q77464717#P9302). For Latin manuscripts of the 13th century, I doubt that script style (P9302)cursive (Q1079418) is adequate. minuscule script (Q69523795) is better in this case I think.

What do you think?

P.S.: Sorry if any of this sounds too harsh. I have a hard time conveying tone in writing, and English is not my first language. Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jonathan Groß - Thank you for the detailed comments!
  1. Regarding instance of (P31), i am fine with using genre (P136) for bestiary, book of hours, psalter, etc. I've been struggling with this - I was concerned that genre should be reserved for works and not manuscripts, but if you are happy with genre here I will use that. (I was actually planning to ask your opinion on this question!)
  2. Regarding the dates, I was trying to follow the usage on the sources as closely as possible. In this case, the Morgan Library site says "ca. 1325–1350" so I used that, but I agree it seems redundant and awkward when there is a range specified. I'll change it.
  3. The same thing applies regarding the script style - the Morgan says "cursive" although that seems strange to me. I am reluctant to change this unless I can find some scholarly reference that describes it differently (in which case I would deprecate the Morgan statement).
As you might have noticed, I am fanatical about references. Please feel free to provide feedback on my work here - I am just an enthusiastic amateur. PKM (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Excellent! Your enthusiasm really is showing :) For 2 and 3: I think we'll do well to stick to the source of the data, like you did. I am no expert on the manuscript in question, and my palaeography knowledge is barely above that of an Undergraduate Classics student, so when I feel that the Morgan Library website's statement about the script style is wrong, that alone is not enough to discredit this statement on Wikidata. We should, however, try and find better sources. Characterising scripts is a job for expert palaeographers, and a lot of work has been done in this area during the 20th and 21st century. Jonathan Groß (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Wikidata items edit

Wikidata items should not be made if there is only a link to Commons, see Wikidata:Notability 1.4: Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement. I'll make deletion requests for Netherlandish illuminated manuscript (Q124039114) and art of Netherlandish illumination (Q124039105). But it looks like you made a lot more. So please be more careful when you make new Wikidata items. JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@JopkeB: You fail to understand the meaning of the phrase "Category items" in the policy. A "category item" is an item with a statement instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836). Such an item will typically have a label which starts "Category:". Neither of the two items you reference have such a statement, nor such a label.
In general, there is no objection to introducing new Wikidata classes for things that represent useful classifications, found in real-world sources (as PKM has noted below). If those classes happen to have Commons categories, that is neither here nor there: it does not create some additional super-objection.
The point of the clause in the policy is to stop people creating specific category items when a regular item will suffice. HTH, Jheald (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
On the other hand, it is reasonable to question whether creating and using intersection items to express information via instance of (P31) and inheritance is advisable when such information could be conveyed using attributes such as location of creation (P1071), country of origin (P495), genre (P136) etc. That is indeed worth discussing, and is why sub-projects create style guides. There can be pros and cons either way. Jheald (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
These are part of a WikiProject task force Wikidata:WikiProject Manuscripts/Illumination. The immediate need here was to provide a field of work for Ghent-Bruges school (Q15941800), but there will be more links, external identifiers, and references as the project progresses. Before, the Commons sitelinks were matched to art styles rather than subclasses of manuscripts, which the project team agreed is incorrect.
The notability criteria “It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references” and “It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful” both apply here. - PKM (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks for the explanation. JopkeB (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Modelling not-for-profit Status of Organisations edit

Hey PKM (and perhaps @Vladimir_Alexiev:,

I'm still struggling to model the not-for-profit Status of Organisations in certain countries. Perhaps you have an Idea how to handle that. I made the proposal of copying nonprofitStatus from schema.org, seeing the problem with it, but can't think of a better solution at the moment.

My current problem is to filter German non-profits that are tax-deductible for a project. In Germany, every legal form can be Gemeinnützig (see Gemeinnützigkeit (Q66660868)) aka. tax-deductible and there is a register for that (unfortunately without IDs).

I.e. a foundation (German foundation under civil law (Q56242138)) can be a non-profit or used as a family holding for a company. Both have the same legal form. A similar problem occurs in the US, where the tax-code 501(c)3 can be applied to many legal forms.

Any idea how to solve this modelling problem would be highly appreciated. Thanks Newt713 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply