Wikidata talk:Showcase items

More item types

It's good to keep track of other classes of items proposed earlier in Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/10#Showcase_items:

• Book: Diary of Anne Frank (Q6911)
• Artwork: Mona Lisa (Q12418)
• Device: Hubble Space Telescope (Q2513)
• City: Moscow (Q649)
• Animal : lion (Q140)

LaddΩ chat ;) 03:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just add them to the future section :) That's what it is for. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Item models

Help:Modeling lists a fair number of items as examples, which could eventually become showcase items. LaddΩ chat ;) 02:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Criteria: sources

It is probably a bit early to have a detailed list of criteria but I think showcase items should not have any "imported from Wikipedia" (sources should either be external or nil). --Zolo (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

See second point on the list at the top of Wikidata:Showcase items :) So yes I totally agree. LydiaPintscher (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So I guess Douglas Adams (Q42) should be removed for now ? --Zolo (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me a day two to improve it. Are these items actually on display anywhere? LaddΩ chat ;) 20:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

They are listed in the weekly summaries now. I think we should consider a redesign of the main page now that Wikidata has been online for a year. That should then include the showcase items. What do you think? --LydiaPintscher (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page yes. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I improved the sourcing of Douglas Adams (Q42) as much as I could. I'll let you deal with the main page... while I revisit sourcing of other showcase candidates. LaddΩ chat ;) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If the source info has been copied from wikipedia, and not independently verified then, in my opinion, that source info should be marked "imported from Fooian Wikipedia" Filceolaire (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why Cambridge (Q350) is a showcase item. It's poorly sourced, population doesn't have date and source. --WikedKentaur (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Band

Suggestions please for a musical group to showcase. Filceolaire (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Kolja21 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

LP

Suggestions please for an CD to showcase. Filceolaire (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Movie

Suggestions please for a movie to showcase. Filceolaire (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• What about Avatar (Q24871) or Titanic (Q44578)? Ain92 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one of these (currently 26) with a decent coverage of properties from Wikidata:WikiProject Movies/Properties. --- Jura 07:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

{{Q'}}

@Vogone: : Reasonator is the best way to view datas about an item, in showcase item pages, a least to reasonator could really help newbies to understand and like the project, which is what we want. @GerardM: (and others) anyone agree ? It's not like reasonator was an external project, it is on wmf servers. I don't see any reason not to use {{Q'}} in this page. TomT0m ^(talk) 21:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If I speak honestly - the idea of Showcase items is to best represent Wikidata items as in. Saying 'Hey view this in Reasonator' defeats the purpose of these being Wikidata's best items. Thus I am strongly against this and for the record - I did discuss Vogone's revert with hi, before he reverted. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@TomT0m: I don't think your view „Reasonator is the best way to view datas about an item“ holds. It's an interesting ad hoc view created by Magnus, but nothing more. Showcase items should reflect best practises, as far we could judge these by now. --Succu (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the best we got by far, and can be developped and is opensource. If someone does better it's still possible to change the template. TomT0m ^(talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, absolutely not ! Wikidatas purpose is not to show datas in Wikidata interface and optimizing the apparence of items ! It's about representing well the datas, and Reasonator is a really good example of what can be done with those datas. I added a symhony, Reasonator could be able to show how to use and listen the different movements of this symphony, this is a really important things to do to demonstrate good items ! TomT0m ^(talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that is not Wikidata's purpose? I sure do want Wikidata to be viewable and enjoyable by humans. That's what the whole UI redesign process is about. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no harm in providing a link to a more human-usable display of data, like the Reasonator, as an example of what can be achieved with WD, as long as the link to the item "as is" is preeminently displayed - showcase items are meant to attract contributors, rather than spectators. LaddΩ chat ;) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

hi Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), I remember Denny's saying that reasonator embedded a lot of domain knowledge, and that Wikidata would by essence stay generic. I'm fine with that but there is limits to what can be done in terms of enjoyability to data viewing and editing in these conditions. Did that change ? TomT0m ^(talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata will not have a lot of domain knowledge as Denny said. That did not change. But there is so much that can be done without it still and we will show some of that over the next months. There is a huge difference between being generic and not being build to be viewed by humans ;-) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Why does it seem that only one showcase item per category is allowed? One could imagine, for instance, that two geographical features both meet the criteria. Also, how is this as a suggestion for approving showcase nominations: nominations are approved if there are no objections for a month. --Jakob (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We have Obama, Mandela, and Gandhi, so obviously three items per category are allowed ;) BTW: The basic guideline criteria is "At least 10 statements". atheism (Q7066) has 8 statements. The current showcases haven't been updated for weeks. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sitelink section

@John F. Lewis: I do not understand what is meant by "A completed sitelink section for all known entries", stated in the guidelines. Could you (or anyone else) clarify? thanks - LaddΩ chat ;) 01:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

All site links are correct and there are no missing site links. So Universe (Q1) can't be a showcase item if it only has 1 site link or is linked to something completely different of the topic. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletion

@John F. Lewis: Beside that it is not very polite to make this kind of mass deletion I think the categorisation (adding the P31 info to the items) is helpful. Otherwise we have no idea what kind of items are still missing and useful to propose. --Kolja21 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If they were unliked just plain text, I can see why but because they are linked, it gives the confusing idea to new users that the category is also Comsidered a showcaseable idea. Also mass deletion? No, I just reverted something done without any discussion which does not add something amazing to the pot. Think of it as 'community life' not 'mass deletion' as the idea is challenged not rejected. John F. Lewis (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@John F. Lewis: That's nonsense, those changes were work by community. Besides you just deleted, not launched a discussion. And ... ordered by Qnumber order ???? That number do not have any meaning. It is helpful to nobody who wants to find the kind of item he is looking for. Please revert. TomT0m ^(talk) 08:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

While I in principle support categorizing showcase items like enwiki categorizes FAs, right now there is no need because there are only about 10 showcase items. Furthermore, having dozens of categories seems overkill unless we have tens or hundreds of thousands of showcase items. --Jakob (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we need showcase items as examples, so the faster we got to a lot of examples in each domains the better. They are bound to be references for Wikidata infobox building, and the kind of the item is also important to show as it maps more or less to the infobox itself ... Rework the categorisation, do not delete all the Wikidatian work on building this page because of black magic opinions. There is at least 3 of 4 people who worked on that page before the revert. Think about it. TomT0m ^(talk) 12:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The numbers does not mean anything except being identifiers. An order of some sort is good, and for Wikidata, all we have are numbers because Q1 is not Universe. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it'd be awesome if we could get back to work on producing more showcase items instead of this discussion. And I agree with John that the linked categories where indeed confusing/misleading. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a time for everything :) The discussion about classification will have to find an answer eventually. That's something we did not settled yet. We're sorting by Wikiproject, by rough classification for property proposals but it's kind of messy. That's somewhat weird in such a project :) TomT0m ^(talk) 22:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposition

Hi,

I am not very familiar with the showcase item process so I post here: I hae been working on Axelle Lemaire (Q18553) and believe it fairly complete − I modeled it after Barack Obama (Q76). Would it be showcase item material? I would welcome any suggestion :-).

Cheers, Jean-Frédéric (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Q13365715

Lucy (Q13365715) may be worth showcasing: not such much for the statements on the item, but for the statements it's being used in. --- Jura 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, in Lucy (Q17379191)    has part(s) (P527) does not fit : composed of is supposed to represent composition of (class of) real world entities to form another real world entities, like in

⟨ my car ⟩ has part(s) (P527) ⟨ my car left rear wheel ⟩

⟨ my car ⟩ has part(s) (P527) ⟨ my car left wheel ⟩

⟨ my car ⟩ has part(s) (P527) ⟨ my car rear left wheel ⟩

, ... , or, for classes

⟨ car ⟩ has part(s) (P527) ⟨ Wheels ⟩

for example. TomT0m ^(talk) 20:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I removed that. --- Jura 09:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Showcase items

@Jura1: Thanks for updating the list "Current Showcase". AFAIK Reasonator has not been updated for months and still ends with "Atheism". Is there a way to synchronize both lists? --Kolja21 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome.

I'm not sure about the reasonator part of your comment. The icons work for me. Which lists do you want to synchronize? --- Jura 03:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The list on the main page. Reasonator: Showcase items. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kolja21: reasonator's code is on bitbucket, it could help. TomT0m ^(talk) 09:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Process?

What kind of process do items go through to become a showcase item? Can someone test an item against the criteria and promote it themselves? I've proposed Iggy Azalea (Q2748803)    and Helsinki (Q1757)    for showcase. If both were promoted, the former would be the first singer showcase item, and the latter would be the first city/capital/municipality. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ideally another person would do it. However that doesn't seem to be working too well so I'd say if your items meet the criteria promote it. Thanks for working on them and pushing Wikidata's quality! :) --LydiaPintscher (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks! :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really ideal, but otherwise none gets promoted ;) --- Jura 15:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1:@AmaryllisGardener:@LydiaPintscher: Is that still the process? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: I think Lydia had hired someone to enhance it last year and various members of staff are discussing new criteria, but I think it still the current process.

Supposedly, you are looking to have Q8037764 reviewed. I think it can be promoted except that the en-description should start with a lowercase "L" and mention that it's in the UK or at least in England. An image would be good to have too.
--- Jura 16:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell, Jura1:

Hello, I won't take any decision regarding the criteria or the process, it's a community topic. I'm working on improving the showcase items page, in order to engage more editors to participate to the process. About the criteria, a consensus seemed to have been found on the criteria written by Harmonia Amanda, I'll stick to these, unless someone has another opinion. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems odd to base it on a description on a old userpage. I think that was proposed a while ago (2015?), but didn't gain any traction.
--- Jura 22:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Mordor (Q202886)

I'm not convinced by the way the various statements are referenced. Do we consider that these statements don't need detailed references or are these consider sufficient? --- Jura 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What would be prefferred? Should I attempt to include page numbers? Popcorndude (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Some time ago I reviewed and promoted this, but it was reverted. It has about as much of referencing .. Obviously, if you merely count the number of links under "references", this is different. --- Jura 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Adjustings

See here. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

QID

It seems I mixed-up the items when promoting it. Should be Q353003, not Q19455277. I wont try to review the later, as I had done a series of edits on it. --- Jura 13:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Template specifically for showcase items!

Hi all! I propose adding a new template for use on this page and for use with showcase items. {{ShowcaseItem}} for example. In its most basic form this could simply wrap or redirect to {{Q}} but this would mean items that are actually accepted as showcase items could be tracked! See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119069 . If no one objects I will likely go ahead with this over the next days. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good! --Kolja21 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 Taiwanese presidential election (Q20683626)

Moved from Wikidata:Showcase items

• Pings: Wylve (talk • contribs • logs) who worked on the item, + Innocent bystander (talk • contribs • logs) or Dom (talk • contribs • logs) for external review. The vote is for a president / vice-president ticket, which may make it a bit tricky. On the other hand, it is a direct election (Q1196727), so it is much less complex to represent than an US presidential election. --Zolo (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Zolo (talk • contribs • logs), I am not sure that this example is a good one because:

• it begin by a declaration that is wrong in French:

  partie de Élections législatives taïwanaises de 2016.

• follows (P155) should qualify instance of (P31).

--Dom (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dom: the French label for 2016 Taiwan general election (Q10845966) was indeed wrong, I have changed it. The follows (P155) is easy to fix as well, and I agree that using it as a qualifier of follows (P155) is better but I don't know if we have settled on guidelines for that yet. --Zolo (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Improve criteria and process

Hello there,

(ping @Harmonia Amanda, Sjoerddebruin, Jura1:)

Based on the criteria and the process suggested by Harmonia and Sjoerd, I made a draft of a new version for this showcase item page. What do you think? Do you still agree with the criteria and the process, do you have any further ideas? Please let me know :)

By the way, on my draft, I tried to build a nice design for the items, including picture etc. If you like it, I would need help to turn this into a proper template.

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Greetings Lea, hope you're doing well. I am very much interested in revamping this part of Wikidata, and launch it as a full new scale wide the project. The basic things that we need is a team of dedicated volunteers who would look after this, something like a team of Delegates and a Director to this, as on en Wikipedia for Featured nominations. We also need to adopt the practice the adding a tag or a sort of top icon to the item that is showcased. We also need to think over regarding the criteria, nomination process, and review of items. I am really interested in taking this forward, just wanted to know if I can proceed. If permitted, I'll draft a more detailed plan to keep this ticking. Looking forward to hear from you. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:, thanks for your suggestion! I'd be glad to help you working on revamping the showcase items :) Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time until the beginning of November because I'm organizing the WikidataCon, but maybe in the meantime you can work further on your plan. Feel free to look at my previous draft, other discussions, and ask if you have any question regarding the items and how they are organized in Wikidata. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Greetings Lea, I'll go through pages and get back to you on further plan of action. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Sorry for the delay. I've busy with the other commitments. However, here I come up with a few suggestions that we can work upon. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Firstly, we need a team of contributors who can take care of this aspect. Like on English Wikipedia, for "Featured articles" we have a Directors and 3–4 Delegates to the Director, who asses an close the discussions related to promotion of the article, and also perform all the administrative tasks related to this. This is very important because unless there is a dedicated group for this, it'll not improve and catch the eye of the community. As you can the item of "Douglas Adams" is listed on the Main page for more than two months.
2. Coming to the "In preparation" tab, I don't think we necessarily need that. Because when a user proposes a item to the Showcase, it'll be the user's part to add all the required statements along with qualifiers and references as required. But the task where help is needed by other users is at translations. Because it is a very rare case that a user has grip in 10 languages, and obviously it'll be a difficult task for the user to create "A reasonable set (~10) of completed translations: labels, descriptions and aliases". Instead of In preparation" tab, we can have something like "Translations pending" tab, where users list completely developed well referenced items but only with pending translations. So other interested users who are watching the page will translate the required to their language. Thus a when a set is done, they can be proposed.
3. Voting: "3 supports" is a quite low count, better be 5 (in case of unopposed proposals). If there is a "oppose" vote, it needs 80% support, with atleast 5 support votes.
4. Recognition: This is a new features. When you go to Featured or good article on Wikipedia, you can see a top icon on the article indication the same. I think it'll good to adopt a similar practice to mark the Showcase items. This will also be a motivation for the users to develop items. Also if they are put on the main page, we can mark it on the talk page with a template.
5. Main page: If this aspect gains more popularity, and more users participate, it'll be good to increase the number of showcase items featured on the main page. Something like "Popular items" section will be a good thing. However that's for later.

Looking forward for your comments. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Krishna Chaitanya Velaga,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. I'm going to answer to your points below. Please keep in mind that the whole thing is a community process: to move forward, we will also need to find other users interested in the process.

1. Yes, we need some more people to take care of the showcase items. I'm not sure that we need a structure as complex and official as the Director and Delegates though. We can probably work with a list of volunteers, like in the Wikidata:WikiProjects.
2. I think that we need a place where editors can discuss about the items in preparation. Usually, there is not only one editor improving an item, but several of them. I'd better encourage the collaborative work than the feeling of "owning" the content of an item. Of course, translation of the labels should be part of it. (for your information, see also Wikidata:Flashmob)
3. We need to remember that for now, we only have a few people interested by this topic. Raising the number of approvals may block the process. 5 seems still OK though.
4. I agree with that. Currently, we don't have a system to mark a showcase item, but we can work on that. What would be your idea? A star in the corner, like on Wikipedia?
5. Sure. Like you mentioned above, we don't have a lot of turnover on the main page so far.

I won't be available during the two next weeks, but when I'm back, we can continue working on this. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Greetings, sorry for the delay. Actually I've been a bit busy. Yes, we need community consensus. Once we're definite on the proposed plans, we can request community feedback on them. Here are my replies:

1. Yes, we can ask interested volunteers to sign up to form a team. May be create "WikiProject Showcase items", and that project will handle the process, like "WikiProject Good articles" on WP.
2. We can have the same page we're using now, with more proposed participation.
3. We can take community opinion on this.
4. Yeah, something like a top icon will work.

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Pinging. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Hello,

Feel free to start a wikiproject, summarize your proposition or process, and ask the community on the Project Chat :) I stay available if you have any problem or question. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Q30000000

I suggest adding The Synergistic Activity of Thyroid Transcription Factor 1 and Pax 8 Relies on the Promoter/Enhancer Interplay (Q30000000) as a showcase item. It will be the only representative of quality items that have no Wikipedia article. Syced (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a good candidate as long as it has author name string (P2093) statements. I'm sure we can find better candidates.
--- Jura 06:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This list is a cool concept!

I am just seeing this list for the first time. What a cool concept! Thanks to everyone who has developed it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Subcategories proposed

I proposed some subcategories here.

The initial problem which I was trying to solve was trying to find a showcase item for a painting. Currently there is no such showcase item, despite the development of items for paintings being one of the flagship presentation cases in advocating for Wikidata engagement. By posting some subcategories I thought that it would help users to identify the showcase item most relevant to their needs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Summer Evening at Skagen Beach – The Artist and his Wife (Q18386245)

What more needs for this Summer Evening at Skagen Beach – The Artist and his Wife (Q18386245), to get to Current Showcase/ Works/ painting? Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Product examples

What are the best examples of Wikidata entries for product (Q2424752)s? None are listed among the showcases. Ehn (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding {{Item documentation}} to show case items

I think it would be relevant to suggest to add {{Item documentation}} to the talk page of every showcase item. What do you think? PAC2 (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)