Open main menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Sports


Sports question/problem(?): Differentiate between team and club?Edit

(originally posted at Wikidata:Project chat)

Hi, while performing the described changes of my proposal to change the English description of Q476028 from "football team" to "football club" I noticed that other sports have the same problem(?), if it is one. Now I wonder: What do you think, does it make sense to differentiate between [sports] team and [sports] club (the word "[sports]" here standing for any type of sports, so basketball, volleyball, ...)? Or should Wikidata treat these as synonyms and all items should receive an alias if needed? Also see the Wikidata generic tree on sports organization (Q4438121)     (, you'll notice that there's an item "sports club" (subclass of sports organization (Q4438121)    ) and an item "sports team" (subclass of sports organization (Q4438121)     and team (Q327245)    ). In Wikipedia most articles/items that use "instance of [sports] team" actually describe both a sports club and a sports team in one article. But then some people seem to use team and club as synonyms in English wikipedia (note that I'm no English native speaker). If Wikidata should differentiate between [sports] club and [sports] team, then either a lot of items need to get an additional "instance of" (for example then "instance of basketball club") or the [sports] team items should receive an additional "subclass of sports club" statement. Maybe also a combination of those two if Wikidata decides to slowly move items over. I'm not really sure what the best approach would be.
For additional fun property sport (P641)   could be used here instead so that not every sports needs a new "[sports] club" entity :) --Bthfan (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

One more funny question : what is a sport ? Is a sport a game, in which case "association football mondial cup football final 2014" will be an instance of football :) I would for myself we better see a sport as a set of club, matches, rules, players, more than just a game, but it's disputable. TomT0m (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW: The BBC uses the term "CompetitiveSportingOrganisation" in their sports ontology ( to avoid(?) the differentiation, but of course their ontology is targeted at what the BBC needs, not what Wikidata and Wikipedia need. --Bthfan (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Another note on this: On DBpedia they see team and club as equivalentProperty, see --Bthfan (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I copied the discussion on this to Category talk:Sports task forces so it does not get lost.
From a naive point of view, there is quite a lot of difference between a "club" and a "team". A "club" is an organisation which includes playing and non-playing people, and fields a "team" which consists of playing people. Not only that, but the "team" fielded by that "club" might not stay the same from game to game; they also might have a "B-team" or "reserves" or some such. Does that help? —Phil Boswell (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

How to tag that someone has worked as an coach for a sports team (a proposal)Edit

As recently a question/discussion came up how to tag that some person has worked as a coach for a team (see Wikidata:Project_chat#How_to_tag_assistant_coaches_.28sports.29.2C_new_property_needed.3F), I'll summarize here the best solution for this problem seems to be:

  • Use occupation->coach or any subclass of coach. Create new items if needed, for example to state that someone has worked as an assistant coach (I think there is no item for this yet)
  • Use of (P642)   as property for a qualifier to state for what team that person has worked as a coach for
  • Use start time (P580)   and end time (P582)   as properties for qualifiers to state when someone has worked as a coach for a team
  • See Paulo Fonseca (Q10346582)     for an example of the described tagging

Minor problem with this is possible data duplication if the item of the team also lists all coaches that have worked for that team as head coach (head coach (P286)  ). But I personally think that data duplication is ok in this case. --Bthfan (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, I ask confirmation to the Wikidata:Project chat today. --H4stings (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How to tag items that are about sports season entries (for example 2010 NFL season)Edit

(originally posted at Wikidata:Project chat)

I wonder how to tag items that are about individual sports seasons. I wonder especially how to tag that those belong to a certain league. As item examples see 2010 NFL season (Q622675)     or 2012–13 NBA season (Q113619)     (there are many more of these). I would use part of (P361)   [item of the league] (so as value then use for example NFL or NBA item here). Someone agrees or disagrees with this? Using instance of (P31)   does not seem possible as there are no generic items for NFL or NBA season. Or should we consider creating a generic NBA season item which is (part of) NBA and then make those season articles instance of NBA season? --Bthfan (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Took a look again and found 2012 NFL season (Q1395918)    . This one uses part of the series (P179)   = National Football League regular season (Q1661524)     to specify that connection to the NFL. Looks like another possible solution to me (except Q1661524 is not linked to the NFL main item in any way). --Bthfan (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See my section on Wikidata:Project_chat#Properties_for_sports_leagues_and_matches above and the list of proposed properties at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Event#Sports_Leagues. The NBA season league table in the item User:Bthfan linked to above seems to have extra columns that I don't quite understand so you may need to propose some more properties to record those.
Because the seasons are in a definite sequence I think part of the series (P179) may be more appropriate than instance of (P31) or part of (P361). Use follows (P155) and followed by (P156) as well, plus instance of (P31):sports season of a sports club (Q1539532).
To make this work we do need to create a separate item for each season and/or league table - so the world cup needs separate items for each of the four 'groups' as well as an item for each of the matches in the final stage. part of (P361):[world cup 2014] is more appropriate in this case as the leagues are not in sequence. Filceolaire (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW: According to the description page of part of the series (P179) this one should only(?) be used for domain=creative work. So not really sure if series is the correct tagging for sports seasons (I checked with the API, so far P179 is not used very often for sports seasons yet). And if we really want to nit-pick on the NFL tagging, it's not correct anyway: It says P179=National Football League regular season (Q1661524), but the English Wikipedia article are about the regular season plus the post-season (the lemma in the English wikipedia article is basically not correct here). To explain this for people not familiar with this: The playoffs in sports (where the champion of that season is determined) are usually part of the so-called post-season (or better said: Playoffs are also known as post-season). But then there also extra items/wikipedia pages for some languages on the playoffs, e.g. 2012–13 NFL playoffs (Q4628392). I think this one should then be tagged as part of 2012 NFL season (Q1395918). --Bthfan (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I've copied the above discussion to Category_talk:Sports_task_forces so it does not get lost. --Bthfan (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

4. Tour de FranceEdit

I am looking for some confirmation here. I stared organising the 2014 Tour de France (Q895853) items.

2014 Tour de France is an instance of Tour de France (Q33881). The individual stages are part of 2014 Tour de France (Q895853) all with properties point in time, journey origin, journey destination, follows, followed by and winner. Could someone please give me some feedback on the 2014 Tour de France (Q895853) item and the first few stages that I added before I go down the wrong direction here? RolandBeck 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this looks good! One comment on 2014 Tour de France (Q895853)     though: I think located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) does not really fit as qualifier for start date/end date, I would leave it out. --Bthfan (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I will remove the qualifier, start point (P1427) and destination point (P1444) contain that data anyway. RolandBeck 10:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have picked this one up again: see User:Edoderoo/touretappe for some TABernacle overviews that show what data has been filled in already, and what still needs to be done. Edoderoo (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

New project: Sled dog racingEdit

Hello! If someone is interested in helping me, I've created the Wikidata:WikiProject Sled dog racing! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New property proposal: sport numberEdit

Please give your opinion here! Wikidata:Property proposal/Person. Thanks --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Relate a sports person to its sports; specify their roleEdit

Question: how do I relate sports persons to their corresponding type of sports? Sports persons could be: athletes, coaches, officials, umpires, journalists, researchers, … (and possibly much more). Some ideas how to do that:

I am not sure about (dis)advantages of these and other possibilities, so please comment! —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Merging issue - Butte Copper Kings and Grand Junction RockiesEdit

I've spotted two baseball teams, who may be just different names for the same team: Butte Copper Kings (Q20666458) (Butte Copper Kings) and Grand Junction Rockies (Q5594713). I'm not sure if they should be merged or not, and if so how, as both have an article on the French Wikipedia. My inclination is they should be merged, but hopefully someone here would have a better idea. I originally asked on the main project chat Wikidata:Project_chat#Merging_issue, so I think it would be best to continue any discussion there. Silverfish (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Olympic DisciplinesEdit

Please see this item in the Project Chat: Wikidata:Project_chat#Olympic_Disciplines --VicVal (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Individual athletes competing in pairs?Edit

In the sport of Diving (and sports like Badminton, Table tennis, etc.) you have primarily individual athletes, but they do compete in pairs for some events.

In my mind, the pair of athletes should form a new Item, so I would suggest a structure like this:

Comments or views? --VicVal (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Some incoherent comments, not yet an opinion. I hope that I get things right, so be critical with what follows:
  • Your proposal is not naturally restricted to pairs, you could do the same with any team size. However, this becomes unmanageable for situations, when team compositions vary frequently (many ball games, but also cycling teams, rowing teams, etc.).
  • How to handle teams/clubs was discussed for football teams some time ago (as far as I remember; read this section above: #Sports question/problem(?): Differentiate between team and club?). In my opinion the problem was that there are many wikipedia articles about sports clubs, but no representation of their (various) teams that actually compete in events. I am not sure whether there was a solution towards individual team items.
  • There is a Wikidata:WikiProject Sport results. Not very active however, but there seems to be a related section on it’s talk page. It might be too early to bring sports results to wikidata.
  • The final score/result/time/whatever of the winning team could perhaps be added to the event item as an additional qualifier. It would be useful to add second, third, and all other contestants as well.
  • For “noteable teams” with a wikipedia article in any language we already have team items, which are not yet systematically used for sports results.
  • We should keep in mind what’s written at Wikidata:Notability.
Very complicated. There are a lot of things to consider before we can really start with sports results. I would be happy if we could establish something useful here, but my impression is that it’s too early. More views? —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, let me try to respond - same need to be critical here, as you claim yourself above.
I believe that we need to consider "team" sports and "individuals" sports as to different topics - or at least, two different variations.
In a sport where you always compete in teams, say soccer, the club needs to have one or more teams in order to compete. Whenever you replace somebody "on the team", you have a new version of that team and over the course of years, this can be quite a drastic number of changes.
In a sport where you compete as individual, typically the club will not have the same kind of team structure as for a "team sport". While the club may have a "talent team", a "competition team" and a "elite team", typically, that is not something that is revealed when you go for an event, you simple represents the club.
Additionally, while you compete as an individual, you might also compete in some events where you team up with another person like in a badminton "double" or in "synchronized" diving. While an elite athlete might compete with several different partners in doubles or synch diving, typically the overall number of partners are limited to maybe a handful during their career. In addition, references to their results are usually given as "the success of Tom Daley and Max Bricks", and thus, there is no team-name in place, but merely a reference to their results as a duo.
I agree that it's early days for adding sport results to Wikidata, but i definitely want to engage myself in that dialogue at a later point. For now, my personal preference is to attached the rankings to the sports event items, as that is a finite piece of work, where the complete ranking can be listed from a single source. Doing the reverse, i.e. putting the score/ranking on the "participant of" claims for the athletes is a piece of work, where we never will know if we're done or not.
So even though the structure of sport results are not yet clear, I was looking at the "Winner" claim and find it's easy to add to diving events for individuals. So to keep the same notion for the synchronized events, I would really like to have the in between item for the pair.
Concerning the notability, I believe that if the individual divers are notable and the overall sports event is notable, I believe that the item linking the two divers, as a team, to the event, fulfills the third point of notability, i.e. being a structural element.
Looking forward to more views and comments --VicVal (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016Edit

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Link club > city/regionEdit

How should this be defined? Currently the list includes headquarters location (P159) from which a location can be determined.

I'm trying to make a list of clubs by region, but the information seems rarely available.

Properties/qualifiers for instances of sports club (Q847017) with a link to locations in current use are:

  • country (P17) 5,746 /76.1 % Items
  • coordinate location (P625) 658 /8.7 % Items
  • located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) 541 /7.2 % Items
  • headquarters location (P159) 91 /1.2 % Items
  • home venue (P115) 59 /0.8 % Items
  • location (P276) 43 /0.6 % Items
  • location of formation (P740) 24 /0.3 % Items

"Country" seems too general, "coordinate location" too specific. "Location" should be used for events or movable objects.

"Location of formation" or "headquarters location" could do.
--- Jura 12:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

location of formation (P740) and headquarters location (P159) can be different. I would suggest to use the latter and prefer it over located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), since P159 is specifically made for organizations. P740 can/should be used additionally, but it describes something else. Two more comments: (i) the same applies for all instances (40k+) of sports club (Q847017)’s 100+ subclasses; (ii) data is rare probably because it is not easy to import from any Wiki. I guess we have to fix this manually, although this will be a BIG task. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
P159 seems fine, even though the English language label might not be ideal. Maybe it's not being used as it's not mentioned. Many infoboxes include the information with varying degrees of precision and at least some can be imported.
--- Jura 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI Property_talk:P159#Sample_to_add.
--- Jura 15:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

link a competition to its regionEdit

Hi, I'm new here. I need to make a link between competition and its location. For exemple Premier League (Q9448) and England (Q21). In this exemple country (P17) property indicates United Kingdom (Q145). Is there any property I could use for this ? located on terrain feature (P706) ? qualifier of (P642) of instance of (P31) ? I'm interested in yours points of view (@Casper Tinan:). Cheers. --H4stings (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think operating area (P2541) was made for that.
--- Jura 18:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks for your reply. --H4stings (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

old names of a sport club ?Edit

Hi everyone. Should we use official name (P1448), which seems to be dedicated to places, or the more recent name (P2561) ? --H4stings (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If the name used to be the official name in the past official name (P1448) with start and stop date seems appropriate. ChristianKl () 11:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sports teams changing namesEdit

When a sports team changes its name, for example an NFL team moving between cities, what is the best way to represent that? Should they be considered to be a single entity with a succession of official names? Or separate entities that are successors to each other? This question arose in a discussion with GerardM, and I'd appreciate more input. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The differences are massive. It is only a commercial decision that is intended to keep the same teams in operation. It is not logical in any other way that they are the same. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I think in general we should go with reliable sources to determine cases like this, according to the Verifiability policy. In this case we have 3 (NFL, Pro football reference, ESPN), which regard the team that was called the Los Angeles Rams up until 1994 to be the same team as the one called the St Louis Rams Rams after then until 2015, and the one called the Los Angeles Rams, so I feel we should merge them together here, unless GerardM is aware of any conflicting sources. It also makes perfect sense to me that if a team is acknowledged as the same team despite a game change and venue move, and the players move too, that they are the same team. There are more complex cases (such as the Cleveland Browns, where the players went to the Baltimore Ravens, which are regarded as a new team, the Browns stopped operating for a few years, and restarted with a new roster), that we need to consider on a case-by-case basis. Silverfish (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
In my pov, it depends of each case. Depending of the type of change, new WP articles are created or not, so we have or not the corresponding Wikidata item to work with.
For example, French association football club Red Star F.C. (Q522283) changed its name many times, but it is still the same club: I will not create a new WD item for each name, I will add its old official names with corresponding dates. --H4stings (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Old players played for one and not for the other. It is in the categories where Wikipedia makes a difference.. So what are we talking about? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Category:Los_Angeles_Rams_players specifically states they are different eras for the same franchise. It is trivially true that some players played for them in one era but not another, that doesn't mean they became a different team. When the team moved the players moved too, as far as I can tell, but teams are always changing their roster. Also, if we were to follow the categories, we would be forced to have the Los Angeles Rams team closing in 1995 and then re-opening in 2016, which seems absurd to me. If we want to include data about the category we should find a way of embedding it in the category item, not creating a new item IMHO. Silverfish (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

So to summarize, it sounds like H4stings, Silverfish and I agree that (subject to verifiability), a name change does not make a new sports team. GerardM argues against, pointing out that in the case of the LA Rams, there is no overlap in the roster between the old use of that name and the new, making it like the Ship of Theseus or the Sugababes. Bovlb (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

So the three of you agree and I do not. There is however no way to state that someone is not a LA ram because there is no dating labels. So I find you logic impeccable but not really relevant.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@GerardM: I believe there is a general problem in the way we treat labels differently from claims, in that it's impossible to apply qualifiers, such as temporal constraints. Fortunately this doesn't matter in most cases, and it does greatly simplify data entry. We can overcome this for NFL teams by using official name (P1448), although I haven't seen this done much in practice. If we have temporal qualifications on member of sports team (P54) and official name (P1448) then in theory we could deduce the official name(s) of a team during some player's membership. Is this the problem you're trying to solve by treating name changes as a change in entity identity? Bovlb (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
An old name is also an official name. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'm stuck here. I still don't understand exactly what representation GerardM is advocating or why. I've tried hard to make out their position and suggested several possibilities, but none of them have been clearly accepted or rejected. I've tried to explain my position and its arguments, but they don't seem to be engaging any of my points. Can anyone else help us out here? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

For me it is simple. Changing names is problematic. I have linked many people and find my work undone. I disagree with your position. It is not for lack of trying but for my refusal to accept your arguments. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@GerardM: Please help me out here. Are you saying that when a sports team changes its name, it always becomes a new entity, regardless of any continuity of ownership, location, team membership, and league membership, or the way it is covered by reliable sources? If so, why? If not, what are your criteria for when a team becomes a new entity? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
In general yes and particularly when such a license is moved to another place. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Help page for sport (P641)Edit

I have drafted a Category:Property Translatable Help page for the sport (P641) property at Help:P641, and I hereby invite you to add input to it. This property is particularly difficult to use and deserves a help page. Once there is a stable version, we can also provide translations. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Country propertiesEdit

Which country property (country (P17), country of origin (P495) or country for sport (P1532)) should we use for sport teams/clubs? for country in games? I suppose that P17 is the worst choice (it can only be used when national was participating in this particular country - e.g. host of Olympic games). But the usage is opposite: 1549 results for P1532, just under 100 for P495 and amazing 44127 results for P17! Some tackling is needed... For example, @Artsiom91:, I suppose that this change is wrong. --Infovarius (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there is no problem to set several properties together (country (P17), country of origin (P495) or country for sport (P1532)). For example, AS Monaco FC (Q180305), in my opinion, should have properties "country"="Monaco" and "country for sport"="France". I made this change because I haven't see usage country of origin (P495) in these situations before.--Artsiom91 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

member of sports team (P54), but no occupation (P106)Edit

When going through a series of basketball players, I noticed that some items have P54, but no P106. This seems to be fairly frequent:

	?item wdt:P54 [] .
    FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item wdt:P106 [] }

Try it!

Currently 4804.
--- Jura 09:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

point in time (P585) vs. sports season of league or competition (P3450) as qualifiersEdit

When allocating awards to items, which is the preference to be used when qualifying an award?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sports disciplinesEdit

MisterSynergy Thierry Caro &beer&love Vanbasten_23 Malore LesserJerome Сидик из ПТУ   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports

w:Category:Multisports has the following definition:

This is for events where the same individuals compete in multiple sports, such as w:multisport races like the w:triathlon.

This is distinct from events where:

It outlines it mainly in terms of events, races or competitions. At triathlon (Q10980), currently has both such event classes and sports subclasses. Should keep these together or separate them? Can this be done consistently? If we opt for the outline by enwiki, there would be at least 6 items.

Currently there a several related items, sometimes with contradictory definitions in different languages.
--- Jura 10:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t fully understand your points. Can you please elaborate what the problem with triathlon (Q10980) is, and how a change could look like? Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I guess is problematic. Should better have a value such as “multisport sport”, right? Which would be the six items we’d need? —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't seem ideal. We need to bear in mind that there are different ways of combining sports. It might be easier to make new items and then try to sort out the existing sitelinks / internal links.
--- Jura 10:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

How we change it depends on the outcome of this discussion, but triathlon (Q10980) currently has:

This combines both "individual sport"/"type of sport" and "[..] race". If we separate this, it would need another item expressing that it combines several sports (unless one considers that "subclass of individual sport" expresses this.).
--- Jura 10:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I agree.
MisterSynergy (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I mentioned individual sport (Q2755547) as triathlon (Q10980) has it as a subclass rather than an instance.
For P641/P2416 can we use anything that is a sports type or discipline (and not a race/competition)?
--- Jura 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Use with sport (P641) requires subclass of sport (Q349) relations (see Property:P641#P2302), thus all “type of sport” items such as triathlon (Q10980) have to use at least one subclass relation to Q349 in order to be “valid” in the current setup. instance of (P31): type of sport (Q31629) claims are rather occupants of the P31 claim, in order to avoid that users put identical values to both P31 and P279, or remove P279 values in favor of P31 values (happens frequently otherwise, and leads to constraint violations subsequently).
  • Situation with sports discipline competed in (P2416) is somewhat different. “types of sport” and “sports discipline” need to be considered technically identical, although instances of the latter are typcially seen as some kind of a subsets of instances of the former, with different possible meanings, and different use in different types of sport. However, the P2416 property looks for a P31 claim in the values to be valid (see Property:P2416#P2302), although items used as values with this property typically also have a subclass-of relation to Q349 due to the exchangeability of “types of sports” and “sports disciplines”.
  • The entire situation with sports properties in this field is a bit ambiguous due to the various ways we can relate items at the moment. For humans, also P106 competes with P641 and P2416. I occasionally try to repair constraint violations of P641 and P2416, but that’s really a complicated thing, and I am not fully happy with the use of both properties anyway (would prefer P106+P2416 without P641 for sportspersons and P31-only with proper structural items for clubs/organizations, events, maybe venues, etc.; the generic P641 would then be used in structural items and for items that are otherwise different to handle at all).
MisterSynergy (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

# item Label; Alias Samples
A1 multisport race (Q31645) event where the same individuals compete in multiple sports; multisport race triathlon competition (Q43767888)
A2 multisport sport (Q43767805) sports where the same individual competes in multiple disciplines triathlon (Q10980)
B1 ? (as A1?) event where the same individuals compete in multiple disciplines of a single sport w:Category:Combination events
B2 ? (as B2?) sports where the same individidual competes in multiple disciplines of a single sport Nordic combination, w:decathlon
C1 multi-sport event (Q167170) event where the individuals compete separately in different sports; multi-sport events Olympic Games
C2 item needed? class of sports practiced at multi-sport events winter sports

To the right I added a table with descriptions and samples of the various terms. If we can't find clear terms, maybe we should use a descriptive label instead of a single term. Don't hesitate to edit/expand the table.
--- Jura 16:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you are already working on its implementation ..
--- Jura 17:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(Yes I am, this was a problem for a long time anyway) Good overview! I added existing items. To my knowledge, the distinction between A (multisport) and B (combination sport) is not always made; e.g. in de:Mehrkampf both types are mixed together and both terms are coined, while enwiki separates them a little more in en:Multisport race. However, C (multi-sport) is clearly different. Decisions to be made:
  • Do we want to separate A and B?
  • I have meanwhile created A2 (see multisport sport (Q43767805); improvements welcomed), which should take some or most of the interwikis from A1. For Wikidata modelling we definitely need both items, but Wikipedias will not be happy if we separate the interwikis about related, but not necessarily identical concepts.
  • Regarding C2: do we really need an item for that? Not sure yet…
MisterSynergy (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Reasons not to distinguish A and B:
  • If types of sports and their disciplines don’t have an unambiguous definition, it might be difficult to put items into category A (multisport) or B (combination sport).
  • enwiki subcategoriezes en:Category:Multisports within en:Category:Combination events, which indicates some kind of “multisport subclass of combination sport”. This does not make sense anyway.
  • enwiki claims in en:Multisport race that a distinction is made when “their individual components are not held back-to-back”. This is different from the approach outlined above for type B.
MisterSynergy (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It might be hard to translate as well. So let's skip B1/B2 for other than interwiki purposes. C2 seems to be a parent class for A2 and the answer to the P641 for C1.
--- Jura 18:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure whether I agree with “C2 seems to be a parent class for A2”. A (and B) are used to organize types of sports (and their competitions), while C defines certain organizational aspects of sports mega event such as the Olympics. As far as I understand, you propose to have a class which can be used like , right? (Olympic sport (Q212434) is not in good condition.) I don’t see a connection between C2 and A2. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
More like
< A2 > subclass of (P279)   < C2 >
< multiple sports at the same time combined by the same athlete > subclass of (P279)   < multiple sports at same time >
. I don't really think Olympic sport (Q212434) fits in as at least its English label is singular.
--- Jura 11:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
What do we need that relation for?
  • I still assume that C2 would be closely related to C1, i.e. to “organizational aspects of sports mega events” (as written before), not to the classification of types of sport.
  • Then A and C are in fact very different branches in the sports ontology. I am not sure whether we should establish subclass of (P279) connections between them.
  • There is Q37701258; is this the C2 item (candidate) you talk about?
MisterSynergy (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I think C2 could help us determine P641 for any sports events. Q37701258 was found to be insufficiently defined and probably badly labeled and described. Given the structure before we started streamlining it, maybe this isn't much of a surprise.
--- Jura 06:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For a better overview, I started a list at lists/multi-sport sports. I noticed that you are moving "has parts" to "sports".
    --- Jura 05:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I will continue working here this week. There are similar problems as with the triathlon item in the field of motorsports to solve as well, but let’s do multisport first. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I expanded the list further. It looks like the same problem comes up when trying to add parts .. hope we don't end up merging things.
        --- Jura 11:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Lists became pretty complex now. Will nevertheless try to use them … :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem with the part of (P361)/has part (P527) property pair for multisport sports and their “parts” is that there is simply no mutual dependency. swimming (Q31920), road bicycle racing (Q3609), and running (Q105674) are fully independent of triathlon (Q10980), thus part of (P361) triathlon (Q10980) claims are not appropriate in them. This is different for real "system <-> component" relations which we use the part of/has part relations for. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if using "sports" is actually the better solution. Whatever solution we come up, I think it's preferable if the information is already there in one way or the other.
        --- Jura 12:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
        • @MisterSynergy: To my mind part of (P361) is better in this case that sport (P641) - the latter is more used for linking non-sports item (person, events, organisations...) to sports, while the former is better suited to link classes of the same type. --Infovarius (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
          • sport (P641) is a general purpose property without any scope. I actually don’t like it due to its ambiguity, but it can establish relationships between items when other properties do not work. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Team sport opposite of individual?Edit

Forking from the above conversation which I don't have the time or mental space to get stuck into minutiae above.

  •   Comment I do wish to query the statement "individual sport (Q2755547) opposites team sport (Q216048)." It simply isn't true. There are numbers of events where the individual and team result can be drawn from the same event. Three day equestrian being an example, and looking at gymnastics where the teams take place early, and the best performers go through to the individual components. So to state opposite is simply not real. Similarly is motor sport a team event or an individual event? These are false distinctions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Maybe another point to improve on. As it's not directly linked to the previous one, I changed the section header level to "==". Frequently what can be seen as opposites are complements or different aspects of the same. Maybe more classes are needed to describe these aspects.
      --- Jura 05:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This observation is related to the difficulties that arise when you try to define what a “type of sport” is (or, likewise, a “sports discipline”), and where its boundaries are. There are different approaches, which include to my knowledge: (1) each “type of sport” is goverened by its own governing body, (2) a certain set of rules defines the “type of sport”, or (3) a certain set of skills defines a “type of sport”. Definitely none of the approaches works well for all types and they sometimes lead to different conclusions, since there are a lot of sub-variants of sports, often unregulated or of regional relevance. However, for (3) the types of sports are roughly categorized into more or less opposing categories, such as “individual” vs “team”, “summer” vs “winter”, “game” vs “race” vs “combat” vs others, “indoor” vs “outdoor”, and so on. Clearly not all types of sports can be categorized by all means, but this scheme helps to identify the certain set of skills that could be viewed as defining for a type of sport. It is clear that mixed types exist, and that in some cases the individuality of a type of sport is not a good measure at all. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This sport was a discipline at the Olympics in the year ..Edit

What would be the preferred way of determining this? I was thinking about adding a column to lists/multi-sport sports. We do have countless items about specific events .
--- Jura 06:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another complicated situation. Wikidata talk:WikiProject Olympics contains some attempts to get this done (from July 2016), but it is in early conceptional stage. Since “Olympic Games” instances and their sports/disciplines/events mutually depend on each other, the best way IMO is to connect them hierarchically with part of (P361)/has part (P527), and view all involved items as “event type items” (which should instantiate/subclass a suitable event item). —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I read that after posting here, but it didn't quite answer my question either. At least, now I know where to look if a solution comes up. Maybe a general query searching for items with years could work.
--- Jura 12:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Correct, I forgot to address the aspect about times. Since there is no model (to my knowledge), some general remarks: The Olympics and all its parts can be viewed as individual events, so all of them can use P580/P582 or P585 claims. I can then imagine several ways to query the information you are asking for, but I fear that at this point a lot of work would be required to set this up. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I tried one at lists/multi-sport sports.
--- Jura 07:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A "How?"-gap ?Edit

It seems we have plenty of items about who? when? where? (at least at WikiProject Tennis), but the items about "how?" seem harder to find, at least beyond items for different disciplines. It should be possible to find concepts like the ones on w:Glossary of tennis terms easily. Has this been tried in some sports?
--- Jura 17:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t heard about a systematic approach, but I would be interested as well. One typically finds some concepts which already have a Wikipedia sitelink, but the modeling is very difficult (beyond something like "instance of: tennis term" or similar). I also find it difficult to bring such concept items to practical use on a larger scale, so right now there is much easier work to do in most types of sports with "Who?"-, "When?"-, and "Where?"-like items, as you describe them. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with what you wrote. Eventually a practical use might emerge once it's done in a more systematic way .. I think even merely providing translations and navigating them can across different sports can be interesting. Compared to the many "when?"-items, their importance could be high. Maybe the new articles database (Special:Search/scientific article tennis, 800 currently) can put them to use as well. Hopefully, eventually we get articles beyond medical information.
    --- Jura 08:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering about a good way to link the wp glossary. Every entry there has an anchor. How about the solution at Q47514942?
    --- Jura 11:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A first attempt at Wikidata:WikiProject Tennis/Lists/tennis. Currently the list of items is mostly hardcoded.
    --- Jura 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

MisterSynergy Thierry Caro &beer&love Vanbasten_23 Malore LesserJerome Сидик из ПТУ   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports

MisterSynergy Thierry Caro &beer&love Vanbasten_23 Malore LesserJerome Сидик из ПТУ   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports

Figure skating propertiesEdit

Three linked proposals for new properties to handle figure skating data:

--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sports in <country>Edit

At Wikidata:WikiProject Sports/reports/sports in a region, I added a report for these items identified with sport in a geographic region (Q29791211).

For tennis I made an attempt to get them fairly complete. They are included in a summary at Wikidata:WikiProject_Tennis/reports/by_country.

Some Wikipedia articles linked by these are rather complete, others might just be there to encourage the reader to write one. I'm not quite sure about the best way to make use of these items at Wikidata.
--- Jura 09:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Basketball property proposalEdit

Hi everybody! I'm thinking about doing a basketball property proposal. I think it would be great to have the five statistical data that are controlled in basketball: points (number of points/goals/set scored (P1351)), rebounds, assists, steals and blocked shots, but I'm not sure if it would be better to ask for averages instead of total data. Or maybe both? What do you think? --Yuanga (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @John Vandenberg, MisterSynergy, Xaris333:, may you help @Yuanga: ?. I'll help him preparing the proposal, but your expertise regarding the "best practices" in sport properties will be wellcome. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you give an example? With a certain item. Xaris333 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Xaris333: For example, in the last season Xavier López-Arostegui obtained: 185 points, 98 rebounds, 23 assists, 20 steals and 0 blocks. But the media tend to show "averages", because the raw data could not give a good idea about the player: 6 points, 3 rebounds, 1 assists, 1 steals and 0 blocked shots.--Yuanga (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
So you want property or properties to show the statistics of a player per season? We must think something general for all statistics (rebounds, assist etc). I don't know any similar property. number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) is now using for all the games a player played through all seasons in a team... We don't need average because we can get it by using number of matches played/races/starts (P1350). Xaris333 (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333: I agree, maybe we don't need averages. I've been looking for basketball stats and the amount of data used is higer than I proposed: games starting, minutes played, %field points, %3P, %free throws and PIR (or EFF). Anyway, All these statistics of a player are not per season, it are per competition and season.--Yuanga (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Defending championEdit

Hello, P1346 identifies the winner of a competition, so the <tvar|q>2006 FIFA World Cup (Q37285)</> was won by Italy. However, how should we add the winners to <tvar|q>FIFA World Cup (Q19317)</>? In particular, it would be interesting to have the current winner. Any suggestions? -- 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t put this information whereever it somehow fits. Without any modifications, I can come up with this query that finds the current champion team and the defending champion at the past World Cup. Problem is: by far not all items are properly set up, thus this does not work for all World Cup editions right now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I'm programming a bot to improve the "sport" instance, since I frequently encounter strange values ​​in this field (actor, pornographic actor, athlete, etc.) and I wanted to ask you some questions so that you can give me opinions about its configuration. For example, do you think that an athlete can have in "sport" -> cycle sport (Q2215841)    , mountain biking (Q520611)    , track cycling (Q221635)    , road bicycle racing (Q3609)    , paralympic cycling (Q19704499)    , cross-country cycling (Q1031445)    , etc. or we should have cycling and in sports discipline competed in (P2416)   put these values. The same with Paralympic sport Paralympic powerlifting (Q3126275)    , paralympic swimming (Q2413978)    , para rowing (Q1575010)    , Para Taekwondo (Q4345014)    , Paralympic cross-country skiing (Q82232)    , Paralympic Nordic skiing (Q3952256)    , paratriathlon (Q3363711)    ). Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Vanbasten 23, just to avoid confusion: do you talk about the sport (P641) property and values used with it? —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. There are many strange values that I want to control in sport (P641). I understand for example that 1500 metres (Q191691)     should not be in sport (P641). The correct value would be athletics (Q542)    , and 1500 metres (Q191691)     go to sports discipline competed in (P2416)  . But the others? Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I would not touch technically valid values (i.e. subclasses of sport (Q349) or some other items), even it there appears to be consolidation possible. It would be valuable to clean "value type constraint" violations at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P641, of which we have around 1000 right now.
More in detail: there are several problems with this property. First of all, it is very general and does not carry much meaning. In a lot of cases, it would be better to use another property instead, e.g. for sportspeople prefer occupation (P106) over sport (P641). Nevertheless, sport (P641) is used more than a million times meanwhile but barely anyone cares about its quality. A second problem is that "type of sport", "sports discipline" and "event discipline" are not unambiguously defined, and there is furthermore no consistent classification model for these concepts available over all the possible types of sport. It depends on several aspects whether one defines something as a "type of sport", or as a (sub)discipline of another type of sport. For that reason, sport (P641) and sports discipline competed in (P2416) are somewhat redundant, and both can be used interchangeably to some extent. "Event disciplines" such as 1500 metres (Q191691) should indeed preferably be used with sports discipline competed in (P2416), but there’s also middle-distance running (Q1163256) to consider here. A third problem is that quite often users tend to remove crucial subclass of (P279) statements from type of sport items. Without the subclass relation to the sport (Q349) item, sport (P641) statements using such items as values become formally invalid. That’s somehow a consequence of our data model, where we understand sport as activity, and types of sport as more specialized activies (thus subclass relations). —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I think there's a lot to code, to improve... Thank you very much for your help. If it isn't too much abuse, I would like to propose the changes that the bot would make and you tell me. The bot change only 4 ways:

Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

About 4. There are languages ​​that use sport (P641) to put it on their templates, and any templates are different depending on the sport in sport (P641). In addition, the bot would be working from time to time, checking that all points are met. Doing maintenance (this is about the first group). Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
About 3 i have doubts.
  1. paralympic athletics (Q1757181)     -> athletics (Q542)    
  2. artistic billiards (Q862719)     -> cue sports (Q3341285)    
  3. bicycle motocross (Q215184)     and cycle sport (Q2215841)     and mountain biking (Q520611)     and track cycling (Q221635)     and road bicycle racing (Q3609)     and paralympic cycling (Q19704499)     and downhill mountain biking (Q672066)     and Freeride (Q1435084)     and cross-country cycling (Q1031445)     and cyclo-cross (Q335638)     and para cycling (Q2261949)     -> cycling (Q53121)    
  4. English boxing (Q2922870)     and professional boxing (Q2631720)     -> boxing (Q32112)    
  5. bouldering (Q852989)     and Ice climbing (Q1148495)     and rock climbing (Q1154336)     and Speed climbing (Q1430744)     and Lead climbing (Q1340655)     and lead climbing (Q1759797)     -> climbing (Q22857)    
  6. college basketball (Q48890)     -> basketball (Q5372)    
  7. amateur wrestling (Q838089)     and freestyle wrestling (Q327223)     and Greco-Roman wrestling (Q389654)     and professional wrestling (Q131359)     -> wrestling (Q42486)    
  8. finswimming (Q1148620)     and open water swimming (Q631004)     and paralympic swimming (Q2413978)     and synchronized swimming (Q180692)     -> swimming (Q31920)    
  9. para rowing (Q1575010)     -> rowing (Q159354)    . Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn’t change any of them. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Just a note about competition-distances, there aren't just athletics (Q542) that uses different length of distances to compete in. There are also of course swimming (Q31920), track cycling (Q221635), rowing (Q159354), canoeing and kayaking (Q213934), speed skating (Q192431), short track speed skating (Q193654) and inline speed skating (Q618786). So all distances arent just for athletics (Q542). Best regards Migrant (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The degree of specialization on a given event distance is quite different in different types of sports. In rowing, nobody would claim to be a "2000 metre rower" doing "2000 metre rowing". For that reason, in rowing the event distance is nothing which explicitly appears in rower items in any way; we use event distance (P3157) in rowing event items, and use the rowing event items with participant of (P1344) in rower items. On the other hand, in athletics for instance the situation is very different. There is indeed some grouping of specific distances being done, sprinting (Q624482), middle-distance running (Q1163256), long-distance running (Q917206), and so on, but we have never arranged how to use all the possible values; athletics (Q542), track and field (Q3312129), running disciplines of track and field (Q21467672), and running (Q105674) are also legitimate values to be used with sport (P641) or sports discipline competed in (P2416). —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Migrant:, thanks. About what you say, I made a query to know what was currently introduced in sport (P641) and the query show me those distances in athletics. The ones you say exist, but weren't used by users in sport (P641). Greetings. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

vertical heightEdit

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm looking at trying to improve items about ski resort (Q130003). One of the most common descriptions of a skifield is the "Vertical drop/distance/height" or simply "vertical" - the distance between the highest point [the summit] and lowest point [the base station] in the skiable-area. For example, it is 1609m for Whistler Blackcomb (Q1206060)[1][2][3][4]. How should this be modelled in WD? Is height (P2048) appropriate? (The only other viable existing property might be vertical depth (P4511) but that's for underground/water things, and this question should not be confused with elevation above sea level (P2044) which refers to height at a specific point).
While my question applies to skiing (and snowboarding etc.) this might also apply to other sports - including climbing route (Q1699583) (which describes individual routes in terms of "vertical gain") and perhaps even recreational dive site (Q2141554) (though vertical depth (P4511) might be more appropriate there?). If height (P2048) isn't good enough, does this call for a new property proposal - "vertical height"? Wittylama (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ski resort AND TownEdit

Following from my above thread - relating to #Vertical height for ski resorts - I would like to ask another piece of advice... Please advise if this isn't the correct place for this question.
In trying to clean up all skifields/ski resorts, I've found many items which are imported from Wikipedia articles that speak about the ski resort and the associated town/village interchangeably. Sometimes they also speak of the town, skifield, and associated mountain all as one. This makes sense for Wikipedia where these concepts can be addressed together in one article. However, I'm not confident that this is accurate/correct for Wikidata.
As you can see at THIS QUERY there are over 100 items which are BOTH 'instance of' ski resort (Q130003) AND human settlement (Q486972). And, if you swap line 9 and line 10 in the query, you see there are a dozen items which are both 'instance of ' ski resort (Q130003) AND mountain (Q8502).
To me this seems inaccurate... A town has a mayor, a census record, an altitude, a population. But a Skiresort/skifield has an owner (not a mayor), a vertical-height not an altitude (see above thread), a visitors per year not a population... etc. However, I equally acknowledge that for many of the places in this list the town and ski-resort are so co-dependent that the town exists entirely because of the skifield.
Should I try to break these apart into separate items for skifield, town, mountain? And if so, should I default to making the currently existing item the one about the town and create a new item for the skifield - or vice versa? Wittylama (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i'm going ahead and doing this - splitting the items manually. You can see my progress here User:Wittylama/Adventure_sport#Skiing/Snowboarding. Wittylama (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wittylama: I am thinking about adding some alpine items close to my city. How do you think is it Ok to call a lending point with 1 track ski resort (Q130003) or is there more appropriate class for it? --Infovarius (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Infovarius, if I understand your question, you're asking what is the "minimum standard" for what counts as an instance of ski resort (Q130003)? I must admit, I've found a couple of items that are edge cases too... for example I recall one that was: 1 short piste, 1 tow-rope lift, in the gardens of a conference-center/hotel. First I look in both Skimap area ID (P6400) and ID (P6389), and if there's nothing there, then my rule of thumb is "could I, as a tourist, purchase a day-pass ticket to use the lifts"? I think anything less than that then it's just a snowy hill :-) Wittylama (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC) .... adding a missing endtemplate-parentheses. Migrant (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for links! I found almost all my candidates in the first :) I'll try to create them. Until someone would challenge :) --Infovarius (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Structure of sports organizations/clubs/teamsEdit

In a discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties/Team example we have found a structure that can apply for all multi-sport clubs, mono-sports club and teams. Please say your opinion.

MisterSynergy Thierry Caro &beer&love Vanbasten_23 Malore LesserJerome Сидик из ПТУ   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports Delusion23
Japan Football
Unnited meta
محمد آدم
Сидик из ПТУ
  Notified participants of WikiProject Association football John Vandenberg
  Notified participants of WikiProject Basketball

There are 3 cases of sports organizations:

a) A multi-sport organization (for the example: Mars). An organization for the purpose of playing multi-sports (more than one). That organization is a parent club for many teams (not clubs).

The structure is:

b) A mono-sport organization (for the example: Poseidon). An organization for the purpose of playing one sport. That organization is a parent club for many teams (not clubs) that all playing the same sports. In the example, that sport is association football.

The structure is:

c) A single team (for the example: Hermes). Is just a single team. It's not a part of a parent club. There are no other teams with the same name that are part to the same organization. The team has no B or U19 etc. team.

The structure is:


Please say your opinion. Xaris333 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I   Support this valuable and great proposal, so thanks to all involved editors who elaborated it. From my point of view the inverse issue with parent club (P831) is not really something to worry about, as we could either go with P831 only (i.e. no backlink), or use has part (P527) as a backlink from club to team items. Meanwhile, has part (P527) and part of (P361) are no longer constrained to be used as inverse properties only. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wanted to know in case of a) multi sport club, how are we planning to define the finances and organization structure for the individual teams associated with it. For e.g. it is possible that Mars FC (men) and Mars VC (men) could have their annual financial disclosure, also organizational positions that are unique to them. There should be an option to represent a multi-sport club -> individual sport club -> individual sport team relationship when required for such scenarios --Unnited meta (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Also does this change the member of sports team - P54. I would assume player is still associated with the club since he signs the contract with the club and could play with the U-19, reserve or main team based on requirement. The coach on the other hand can be associated with the team. We may have to set some standards on similar lines for other properties as well so that it is clear --Unnited meta (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: - whats your take on this P54 --Unnited meta (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. I would thanks @Xaris333: for helping to clarify the debate and structure the solution so that everyone understands it without following/reading a long discussion. The concern of @Unnited meta: talks about a topic absolutely new and not discussed until now. In addition, it has no relationship with the six weeks's discussion we have had just to "change club by team" in P31, something absolutely basic and -for me- a minor change. So, if @Unnited meta: is worried by the ontology of the contracts and financial structure of clubs, I invite him to start a new topic different from this one. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Disagree, this was discussed as well. We don't need to start a new discussion for that. You have to look at all possibilities before making the change in the structure, this is not minor. We basically will be needing two items for almost all relevant clubs going forward when earlier it was one. Just like we have added three scenarios in a, b and c, we just need another scenario d where the multi sport club -> individual club -> individual team could exist when needed. This will accommodate for situations where the finances and org structure are equally important in more than one sport. So in above example if Mars FC and Mars VC are equally relevant and have their own organization positions, finances etc currently they both will be forced to be represented within Mars maybe using qualifier "of" to differentiate between Mars FC and Mars VC. Using option d will avoid that --Unnited meta (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Why MarsFC is a association football team (Q15944511)? I think it should be a association football club (Q476028) ("sub-club"). --Infovarius (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • "MarsFC" is not mentioned in the proposal above. In fact, "MarsFC" is the football department (you call it "sub-club") of "Mars", and it hosts itself the teams "MarsFC (men)", "MarsFC (women)", "MarsFC (B team)", "Mars FC (U19 women)" and so on. Question is whether we need an extra layer of items for the club departments by sport; right now I don't think we need this, but if someone comes up with good reasons, I'd change my mind. --MisterSynergy (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
      • yes, we need to accommodate another scenario d where the multi sport club -> individual club -> individual team could exist when needed. This will allow for situations where the finances and org structure are equally important in more than one sport. So in above example if Mars FC and Mars VC are equally relevant and have their own organization positions, finances etc currently they both will be forced to be represented within Mars maybe using qualifier "of" to differentiate between Mars FC and Mars VC. Using the new option d will avoid that -- Unnited meta (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: That what you are talking about?

d) A multi-sport organization (for the example: Mars). An organization for the purpose of playing multi-sports (more than one). That organization is a parent club for many clubs (Mars FC, Mars BC, Mars VC, etc) that are equally relevant and have their own organization positions, finances etc.

The structure is (I have only added football teams):

But what if Mars FC (men) and Mars FC (women) are also equally relevant and have their own organization positions, finances etc? Then we can use senario a or something else? Xaris333 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess FC Barcelona would fit this type of organisation since it has football division for ladies and men and also teams in handball and basketball and all teams on european level. Best regards Migrant (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say also:
Oh interesting, they don't have multiple teams like in association football women, u-23, reserve, etc. ? -- Unnited meta (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: - I couldn't answer that question earlier as well as I don't follow the women games much, but hopefully within the same sport there will be more overlap rather than requiring separate structures. For now I would suggest just to consider Mars FC(women) as a team that is part of Mars FC. Also if there is agreement on using parent club then

Items about sport racesEdit

MisterSynergy Thierry Caro &beer&love Vanbasten_23 Malore LesserJerome Сидик из ПТУ   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports Which property we should use in items like Biathlon at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Women's individual (Q15052019)?

Regards, —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks good for biathlon individual race (Q4200760), but is it correct for high jump (Q165704) or 50 metres backstroke (Q9134271)? biathlon individual race (Q4200760) is biathlon competition (Q51931416) (subclass of (P279) of sport competition (Q13406554)), but high jump (Q165704) and 50 metres backstroke (Q9134271) are sport discipline (Q2312410). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, same story. There is no universial definition for "sport" and "sports discipline" available in this world (and not in Wikidata either), thus you can use sport (P641) and sports discipline competed in (P2416) interchangably in many situations, as long as constraints allow you to do so. Tendency is to use sport (P641) for the broader classification (such as athletics (Q542) or "aquatics"/swimming (Q31920)), and sports discipline competed in (P2416) for the more specific form (such as high jump (Q165704) and 50 metres backstroke (Q9134271)). Both properties, however, are used in very different contexts and are thus not very informative; often you can and should find better ways to express relations (e.g. for persons prefer occupation (P106) over sport (P641) and so on).
On the other hand, competition class (P2094) is meant to define exactly what a specific sporting event is about: event discipline, eligible participants (typically "age", "gender", in some sports also "athlete mass", etc); depending on the type of sport, there may be further standardized aspects of a sporting event, such as the "event distance" (for races), "event time" (for games), "team size", and so on. The approach with competition class (P2094) is that its (single) value item defines more or less exactly these details of a sporting event. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Modeling level of competition (HS/college/professional)?Edit

When looking through some unexpected results on a SPARQL query, I came across Gary Scott AA Provincial Championships (Q5525906). Previously it was tagged as instance of (P31) high school (Q9826), which is definitely wrong. I changed it to sport competition (Q13406554), but now the entry loses the information about high school (Q9826). How would one tag a competition level (high school / college / professional)?

(Full disclosure: I'm new to Wikidata) Vahurzpu (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That was a good correction, thanks for that! At this point I would not worry too much about the "lost" information that this is a high school (?) competition. We do not have an established model for that, although some approaches with instance of (P31) or competition class (P2094) appear possible. However, right now there are more important things to do… —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Sports".