Wikidata talk:WikiProject Sports

Active discussions

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)

Very old thread, but I faced the same problem: my understanding is that the applicability of occupation (P106) is indeed wider. Its facet of (P1269) expects both profession (Q28640) and more generic occupation (Q12737077). I found occupation (P106) well suitable for soccer players, to be verified with others.--FabC (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2019 (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)
ny update on this? I know there is erzielte Punkte/Tore (P1351) but that doesn't really work for sports with multiple sets, e.g. tennis, squash, table tennis,.... I think we are at a place now where we can think about integrating sports results into Wikidata and such an item (even if just plain text) would be very helpful. Thoughts? See also --Mad melone (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2020 (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 Сидик из ПТУ Phikia Mathieu Kappler   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
⟨ Olympic sport (Q212434)      ⟩ subclass of (P279)   ⟨ C2 ⟩
, 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)


Did you come to any conclusion? Is sport (P641) a single-item property, why not list each sport instead of making a generic "placeholder for many sports"? That should solve the "Olympic sport" query below.

I noticed Q56109259 is a top offender and it has hardly any description. Only sure that it's not multisport sport (Q43767805). Would "too many sports at same event to be listed" be a better description? At least then it then makes sense being a (temporary) violation. If it wasn't part of your scheme, maybe it should be removed before it spreads further. Mostly it seems to be used at instances of sport events, like 2018 Winter Paralympics (Q487313). Is it ok to have the "what sports" in the series (e.g. Winter Paralympic Games (Q3317976)) rather than in each instance? As of now there is no separation of which sports that were in which year either. Seeing sport competition at a multi-sport event (Q51031626) I realise that there is more to sort out... Jagulin (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't really a conclusion, but I still have some related lists on my watchlist. Q56109259 looks odd indeed and should IMO be deleted; it was created after our discussion, and a full list of sports in sport (P641) instead of it is the preferable solution. An alternative would be to use has part (P527) claims with individual event items as values, as we sometimes do it for the Olympic Games. Re. sport competition at a multi-sport event (Q51031626): this item might be useful as an occupant of the instance of (P31) claim of (competition/tournament) items such as basketball at the Mediterranean Games (Q527207), but not the instances thereof (such as basketball at the 2009 Mediterranean Games (Q2352822)); not sure whether we really need it. --MisterSynergy (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I renamed "Q56109259: no description" to indicate it obsolete, in wait of deletion or clarification. Adding each sport is more work.
Interesting, that's actually where sport competition at a multi-sport event (Q51031626) can be used, I didn't notice that items. Still I think basketball at the Mediterranean Games (Q527207) is hardly a "concept" that needs special treatment. "Sport at recurring event" should be more generic, since the enWp article focuses on the recurring results rather than that there are more sports in parallel, but "Sport at event" should be enough since Mediterranean Games (Q272090) carries both "recurring" and "multi-sport". basketball tournament (Q4867756) is from my point of view good enough parent however, still combined with "part of". The Q2352822 could IMHO very well be "instance of" Q51031626 if there was no other parent, but could also be a "sport event". Jagulin (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I added a deletion request to Q56109259 to avoid that its deprecation gets lost somehow. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

C1 may have a purpose for a computer trying to understand the type of event, but for a human I hardly see it matters. I would call it something like "event for multiple sports" to not confuse it with the "multi-sport" things. For C2 I would not make it depend on Olympics or multiple sport events, there are no restrictions to which kind of sports that can be represented at the same event. The "Winter sports", "summer sports", and "indoor sports" (as well as fiction and e-sport) could however be classifier to any existing sport. With that aspect it makes sense to say "Winter Olympics gather Winter sports" but it shouldn't be restricted to "multisports". Jagulin (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I found winter sport (Q204686) and summer sport (Q60583336), used as parent for some sports, e.g. snowboarding (Q178131). Jagulin (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A bit off topic you may want to advice for the actual sports as well: I like how triathlon (Q10980) uses "has part", but why "subclass" rather than "instance of"? Is it technical reasons for the constraints or is it actually a class of sports? Is it the class with instances of specific lengths? swimming (Q31920) is the swimming water-sport. swimming (Q6388) should then not be of sports class nor have sport property? The medals example image could be kept I guess, as competitive swimming is also swimming. What are the instances of swimming (Q31920)? water polo (Q7707) is type of sport, not sport discipline, should it have sport (P641) swimming then? backstroke (Q275115) is a sports discipline (Q2312410) so using sport (P641) seems proper. But I would suggest it to be split into two parts, one is the actual swimming stroke (Q1154385) and then the specific sport "uses" that. Jagulin (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

sport (Q349) is a subclass of physical activity (Q747883); we use subclass of (P279)-relations to sport (Q349) for "types of sport" items, probably because they are more specialized versions of physical activity than "sport" in general is. "type of sport" items usually have an additional instance of (P31) claim with type of sport (Q31629) or sports discipline (Q2312410) as value (both are conceptually very similar). Lots of constraints rely on these subclass of-relations. --MisterSynergy (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I was partly highlighting the formal difference between instance of (P31) (is an example of) and subclass of (P279) (is a subtype of). I would say "Swimming is an example of Sport" and "Swimming is not a (sub)set of Sports", but given the "disciplin" it could be argued that "swimming" is a set of sports as well. And I see that you have practical reasons rather than formal so I'm fine with that solutions. The conceptual difference between "type of sport" and "disciplin" for me is that each "race" is in a specific disciplin, but the participants are known for the sport. 1500 metres (Q191691) winners are athletics competitor (Q11513337) (if the sport is indeed athletics (Q542) rather than running (Q3694569) that I didn't see in the class hierarchy).
running (Q3694569) I think is more appropriate for the sport, compared to running (Q105674) (could be "general running"). As well as swimming (Q31920) is the swimming water-sport and swimming (Q6388) should be "general swimmning". Do you agree with this separation? I haven't checked cycling and car-driving, but those should also have sport separated from "general activity". football (Q1081491) or hammer throw (Q184865) is probably more specific for the sport and don't need the general item. Do you agree with these? Jagulin (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well. To my knowledge, it is not that straightforward to distinguish "types of sport" from "sport disciplines". There are different approaches according to which criteria different "sports" shall be classified and put into hierarchy to each other or not, and depending on which idea you follow, there are different outcomes. Right now we use the practical approach with different "types of sport" as specialized versions of "physical activity", but that's it.
The Sport subclass tree is unfortunately quite messy, and you can find several items which one would intuitively consider to be a sports discipline therein. As far as I know, there is nobody who really maintains this in good shape; the sport (P641) property has deteriorated a lot as well, as it is one of those "fits everywhere and means nothing" properties. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I will not be the one to solve this either, but I did have good hopes when seeing the structural work proposed here earlier. It's not too early to agree on a design. I also commented under bot question where this is more on topic. Jagulin (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It is usable, for example in sports facilities, without a specific sport number. For example, sports centers with courts enabled for multiple sports. --&beer&love (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@&beer&love: I guess you're talking about Q56109259, if so I don't see how it can be very useful since it doesn't indicate which kind of sport. I suppose very few venues can only be used for one thing. You can just as well leave it empty if not possible to at least flag one or more of "ball games", "athletics" or "water sport". Better to add the main sports, or whichever you have source reference for. If you see a specific use for it to a class of sport venues, we can restrict the rules for the item to be used only there. What else do you mean when you say "for example"? Jagulin (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2019 (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 Сидик из ПТУ Phikia Mathieu Kappler   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports

MisterSynergy Thierry Caro &beer&love Vanbasten_23 Malore Сидик из ПТУ Phikia Mathieu Kappler   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)     , para 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. para athletics (Q1757181)      -> athletics (Q542)     
  2. artistic billiards (Q862719)      -> cue sports (Q3341285)     
  3. BMX (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 para 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 in (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)


@Vanbasten 23: Did you manage to make order in the chaos? I know I'm late and it was mentioned above so you probably took care, but most of the "deleted ones" you mention should have fixes. (baseball (Q791187)) -> baseball (Q5369). Q539632 Others may need to be checked first: physical fitness (Q309252)) could be bodybuilding (Q124100). winter sport (Q204686) and disabled sport (Q814517) may be people competing in several sports/disciplins, so leave them until clarified which sports. contact sport (Q2284014) I would think Boxing, Wrestling. Wouldn't have thought those to be counted as combat sport (Q7128792), even though I can't deny the logics. If that's included there's also MMA etc. motorsport (Q5367) is a bit wide, but probably auto racing (Q5386) is the most common "mistake" for people? Swedish Grand Prix (Q9223) should be F1 but Nürburgring (Q152207) makes sense for motorsport (at least racing: Q5386 and Q17163326) in general. kayak (Q539632) is the boat for kayaking (Q2094083). enWp says Sprint kayak (Q18392486) is the sport, covering K2 etc. Any other similar objects? Association Football (Q743526) is deWp for association football (Q2736) (and I've highlighted the use there). Use athletics (Q542) for

The "About 3 i have doubts" part is interesting. What defines a "sport" and a "disciplin"? The "athletics" is a wide range with very different rules, even within "running" there's 100 meter and Marathon being quite different. Is there a common international organization that gather them all or is it tradition? Are disabled sport (Q814517) gathered in a common organization? I don't mind para rowing (Q1575010) as a class of rowing (Q159354), but would expect the para-rowing to have specific disciplins in themselves and possibly more logical to form a sport of it's own. If so, I think everything you mentioned as cycling (Q53121), except para cycling (Q2261949) (where handbiking is a disciplin rather than another name), would be disciplins, but rather use cycle sport (Q2215841) as the sport and leave cycling as a generic activity. I note that BMX (Q215184) isn't motor sport so that's fine.

For swimming I probably see those as separate "typ of sport", and most of them currently are marked as that. cycle sport (Q2215841) is not a disciplin and should probably be a type of sport, see the links for all disciplins, can reuse the existing ones under this sport too? There seems to be at least two disciplins for synchronized swimming (Q180692). open water swimming (Q631004) is currently a disciplin and that might make sense if each place is more or less their own variant. swimming (Q31920) on the other hand "uses pool".

I don't see any reason why artistic billiards (Q862719) would be a sport rather than a disciplin of something like cue sports (Q3341285) (if that's specific enough to be a sport rather than a category). college basketball (Q48890) I think is competitive enough to be a disciplin and similar enough to not be a type of sport. Btw. I didn't think water sport (Q61065) included boating, that's a huge category then. Jagulin (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Jagulin:. The bot have 4 parts. 1) delete the wrong sport. 2) change sport like boxer (Q11338576) to boxing (Q32112). 3) change sport like 400 metres (Q334734) to athletics (Q542) and put 400 metres (Q334734) in sports discipline competed in (P2416). 4) put in sport (P641) the right Q with the information of occupation (P106). With this information you can see all of them here and you can tell me if I should change anything or adding more. Thanks a lot. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Vanbasten 23: Nice that you have it working! How often do you run it? Looks like you have step 3 and 4 disabled. Is that temporary? I hope it's ok that I created a subpage to your user talk for further discussions on how the bot works.
As mentioned above you should probably be more careful to remove what you think is not a sport. Only the clear misuse should be removed, other's are marked as violations and the community can improve them. And for the step 2 you shouldn't remove information about a possible disciplin. Of course it's ok to remove errors and it may put attention to missing data and a proper sport can be re-added. Are you giving attention to any qualifiers or sources listed for the sport, you probably want to stay away or preserve all of that. --Jagulin (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Jagulin:. Often? It depends, two weeks, and i can enable or disabled before to run, no problem, it depends of my time to look the editions. The second option don´t remove, only change the position of the dates. If you look any problem, tell me and i will change. No problem ;) Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Vanbasten 23:I don't understand what you mean by "only change the position of the dates" in relation to "2) change sport like boxer (Q11338576) to boxing (Q32112)". Was I unclear about the number or is it a language confusion? Anyhow I tried to explain what I meant here instead. Jagulin (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jagulin: Yes, sorry, my fault. You said 2 and i thought 3. Ok. Thanks for the User talk:Vanbasten 23/aosbot. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Type of sportEdit

I found some thorough discussion about ontological things in my archive: User_talk:Infovarius/Archive/2018#"subset_of"_vs._"instance_of". May be it could be of some use here. --Infovarius (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2021 (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 Сидик из ПТУ Phikia Mathieu Kappler   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports Delusion23
Japan Football
Unnited meta
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 Сидик из ПТУ Phikia Mathieu Kappler   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 sports competition (Q13406554)), but high jump (Q165704) and 50 metres backstroke (Q9134271) are sports 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 sports 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)

Modeling NCAA sports, leagues, conferences, and teams (USA)Edit

I think the current Wikidata model of university sports needs adjusting. However, you all have been thinking about this a lot longer than I have, thus it's likely that I'm missing something that has been discussed in the past. Below are several of the issues as I see them now; I will mostly use Ohio State Buckeyes women's basketball (Q7080913) as the example.

Examples from the current Wikidata modelEdit

Real structureEdit

The Big Ten and the NCAA are each examples of an sports governing body (Q21495953) (or is sports governing body (Q2485448) the right term?). They sponsor sport leagues for several sports, competition classes, and divisions of competition. The universities themselves are members of the NCAA and the different athletic conferences.[ncaa 1] That is, the Ohio State University (Q309331) (the institution) is a member of the NCAA and the Big Ten, not the Ohio State Buckeyes (Q2927468) athletic program nor the individual teams.

In this way, college sports follow a similar structure to sport clubs (see the club vs. team discussion), where the club is a sports organization (Q4438121) (i.e., administrative entity) which has sports teams underneath it. Colleges (or their athletic departments) are the administrative organizations with individual teams underneath, and athletic conferences are the administrative organizations with individual leagues underneath.

Some examples of the structureEdit

General OSU Example
A college team represents a university.
An athletic department represents the university and each team represents(?) the athletic department.
(I'm not sure which is better)
Ohio St women's basketball represents the Ohio State University.
The Ohio State Buckeyes represent the Ohio State University; Ohio St women's basketball represents the Ohio State Buckeyes.
The team competes in a sport league sanctioned by an athletic association. Ohio St women's basketball competes in NCAA Division I women's basketball, a league governed by the NCAA.
The sport league competitors are defined by factors such as sport, membership standing within the association, and gender of athletes. The other basketball teams in the NCAA Division I women's basketball league all represent institutions who are members of the NCAA. The level is defined as NCAA Division I (Q2842604). The athletes are female.
Member conferences may sponsor the sport, and if so, are typically part of the league organization. Thus, conference teams compete for multiple goals within the same season (e.g., conference championship, national championship). The Big Ten sponsors women's basketball. Ohio St women's basketball competes for the conference championship as part of its season, and its performance impacts its placement in the NCAA championships.
It is reasonable to say that a team competes in multiple leagues within the same season. In addition to competing in the NCAA Division I women's basketball league, Ohio St women's basketball also competes in the Big Ten women's basketball league.
The multiple leagues are fully integrated. The Big Ten Conference women's basketball league exists wholly within the NCAA Division I women's basketball league, which culminates with the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament (Q2948738).

This situation is like how the NY Yankees are in the American League, which is completely part of Major League Baseball. It is different from European soccer leagues, where a team like Real Madrid CF could play in several separate leagues simultaneously (La Liga, Champions League, Copa del Rey).

Possible issues with the Wikidata League modelEdit

The description of the Wikidata league (P118) property is "league in which team... plays", which is similar to the description of sports league (Q623109) ("group of sports teams... that compete against each other"). That works with statements like Bologna FC 1909 (Q1893) league (P118) Serie A (Q15804) and New York Yankees (Q213417) league (P118) Major League Baseball (Q1163715) because participation in Serie A and MLB defines a team's league (at least for that season). One can deduce that if team x and team y both have a property of league z, then team x and team y are competing for the same goal. However, it seems to me that league (P118) is not being deployed correctly for collegiate sports.

In collegiate sport, conference membership does not determine sport participation nor vice versa. For example,

Such peculiarities suggest that Wikidata league classes should be defined more narrowly. I believe that entities like the NCAA, NCAA DI, Big Ten are not instances of sport leagues, and NCAA Division I Women's Basketball and Big Ten Conference Women's Basketball are sport leagues.

Changes to considerEdit

  1. Differentiate between the divisions/conferences as an administrative organizations and as a sports leagues.
    1. Create an item for each collegiate sports league where membership defines the competitors (two teams with a league (P118) property of Z are competing for a common goal). Some of these exist already (e.g., NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (Q19673326)).
    2. This applies to superordinate divisions and conferences. E.g., create items for NCAA Division I women's basketball and Big Ten Conference Women's Basketball.
      1. Would each league also be an instance of an athletic conference (Q2992826)?
    3. Define conferences like the Big Ten Conference (Q729478) as something other than a sports league (Q623109). Probably an sports governing body (Q21495953) or sports governing body (Q2485448).
  2. Create a property like Property:sponsors sport league to indicate which leagues are sponsored by each sport organization. E.g., the Big Ten Conference (Q729478) would have 28 values (14 men's sports and 14 women's sports).
    1. It could get confusing since sponsorship of a league is a common practice as part of sports marketing (Q3321471). "Sponsors" is the word used by NCAA and the conferences, but do we want the Property to use a term like "offers" instead?
  3. Assign the league (P118) property only for a team, never for a athletic department or overall institution.
  4. Assign the member of (P463) property for a university (Q3918) that is a member of an athletic conference. E.g., Ohio State University (Q309331) member of (P463) Big Ten Conference (Q729478) and Ohio State University (Q309331) member of (P463) National Collegiate Athletic Association (Q271805).
    1. We would want to include qualifiers for Full, Associate, etc. This would allow for situations like Johns Hopkins lacrosse.
  5. Assign the member of (P463) property for an athletic conference that is a member of a superordinate governing body. E.g., Big Ten Conference (Q729478) member of (P463) National Collegiate Athletic Association (Q271805).
    1. Qualifiers here would also be appropriate, since the NCAA classifies universities are "Active Members" and conferences are "Conference Members."
  6. There is a class for NCAA Division I women's basketball team (Q54190181), but this class appears limited to just women's basketball (see discussion). If items for each league are created as suggested above, would this class be necessary?

Sorry for the long post. I hope I was clear in laying out the suggestions, and I look forward to feedback about why this is/ isn't a good way to model the data.

BandDandT (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. "NCAA Membership".


Hey BandDandT, according to your comment, you already seem to have a fairly good idea about how to model the field, and which potential obstacles may be there to address. To my knowledge, US college sports has not been properly modelled until now, thus you can somewhat start from scratch. From my experience, a more granular model (about teams, colleges, leagues, conferences, organizations, etc.) is usually more complex to set up and document, but in the end the resulting data is much more valuable.

If you start to model the field of (NCAA) college sports, I suggest to do the following:

  • Start by collecting existing items, and add a very basic set of statements that help you to access those items via the Query Service. Do it type by type for whatever you think is important (e.g. leagues, then conferences, then colleges, then teams, etc.). Create items for missing entities, but have an eye on WD:N.
  • Interlinking of different types with statements can be done later, once you have an impression of existing items. In case something goes wrong, e.g. your model turns out to be not optimal, batch/bot editing often helps to transfer existing data to a better model at a later time. Ask for help if necessary.
  • Documentation is key:
    • We typically use wiki pages to write down in text form how a model for a particular field should look like. Optimally, it should be fairly in line with similar fields, here with sports and/or sports leagues in general, as much as possible.
    • We recently got Shape Expression functionality, which is a formal language to express a data model. Items can be verified against such Schemas. This may be of interest at a later point, as there is not much to gain from it these days.
    • Lists are often very useful. User:ListeriaBot can help you to automatically manage lists of items of different types.
    • Maybe you want to set up a dedicated WikiProject for US college sports (or so). Documentation and lists can be saved there, and maybe you can recruit more collaborators.

That said, as a European user the entire US college sports system is kind of alien to me and I have difficulties to really understand all the details. However, I am available for all kinds of general and strategic advice :-) --MisterSynergy (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

MisterSynergy - Thank you for comments and encouragement! I'm new to the environment (this was my first post) and thus cannot yet execute all your suggestions, but I hope to learn more over time.
I'm working on model all spectator sports in the world within my own database (I research sports and fans), focusing first on leagues European football (EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, etc.), USA pro and college, and IPL. A tremendous amount of my thinking has been shaped by Wikidata, and I'm indebted to those like yourself for the work here (two months ago I'd never heard of schemas, RDF triples, or even understood what Wikidata was). This is a noble project and should serve a (model) to those trying to capture sport-related knowledge.
I would love to help grow the effort around Wikidata modeling and to give back to the community. But, I don't yet have the knowledge to take a lead in that capacity. Once my data are built, I would be glad to share the triple statements with appropriate Q and P codes, for those that exist. What could I offer --and in what format-- that would allow someone more knowledgeable to SPARQL those into Wikidata itself?
BandDandT (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think for the beginning you'd need to do some basic editing in your favorite field, manually through the web UI. Finding and listing items of interest, creating new statements on a basic level therein, creating new items, linking them, fix mistakes, and so on. That should help you to discover what we already have, and what's missing (a lot!). We can later use batch editing with the usual tools, but it would be better if you roughly know how manual editing at Wikidata works. On a side note: we use SPARQL to read from the Wikidata database, but not to write to it. There are several other tools available for batch writing with custom input formats, but preparing formatted input should be the least of our concerns at the moment. --MisterSynergy (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Maintain difference in sport venue typesEdit

There are several types of sports venue (Q1076486), has there been any effort to maintain a structural approach? Anyone interested? From what I see, a more systematic overview should be taken, rather than continue to merge everything. I came to look at this due to merge requests a.k.a. interwiki conflicts. Mainly the gymnasium (Q14092) is used as a "catch all" item. Here's an effort I made to try to look into the differences.

Generic classEdit



  • arena (Q641226) Building like structure, large, spectator friendly, not only sport
  • stadium (Q483110) Mostly outdoor, may be unenclosed, spectator friendly, not only sport


  • indoor arena (Q27951514) Building for Fully indoor arena, spectator friendly, not only sport
  • gymnasium (Q25616558) (i.e. sport hall) Entrire Building. Primarily sports. May focus on practice rather than spectators. The building class is useful. See links.
  • gymnasium (Q14092) is IMHO a mess. But the concept for the actual room/area within the building isn't taken? "locality for both physical and intellectual education" - I wonder where the "intellect" comes in if this is a "sports hall".
  • Q1773623 Gymnastiksal is an item for the room itself, historically oriented towards classical "gymnastics/athletics" but now more multisport and often used at school "sports and fitness education".


I would not expect "gymnasium" to cover everything, unless that is kept as a very generic class and most instances go under a specific type.

Which brings topic: What kind of sport? Does it cover also physical activities for leisure and health?

  • health club (Q1065656) "a place which houses exercise equipment for the purpose of physical exercise"? I think it should be made clear if this is the "building" or the "room" or the "club" (organizers or owner).
  • weight training (Q1425378) is a specific activity that I would not expect to mix into the "generic sport room" even if such is called "gym" too.
  • aerobics (Q215641) might be held in the club, more probably in the bigger hall.


Other sports that should have dedicated classes, are they really types of "gymnasium"?

I'm adding this list here in the hopes of insights from the sports fans as well as interest to sort this out, since I'm not enough skilled in WD traditions. -- Jagulin (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No interest so far, I structured the list further. Also see current structure listed.


association football pitch (Q61105129) vs association football venue (Q1154710). When the first one needed?Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Сидик из ПТУ: Good question! My interpretation is that association football venue (Q1154710) is a stadium (spectator friendly, semi-outdoor-building-like) while association football pitch (Q61105129) is a more generic venue type (could be fully outdoor, no spectators) - perhaps a few association football pitch (Q8524) and a locker room is still a soccer venue. Any stadium is also a venue, but not the other way around. I think the English label changed and will edit to fit this description. What do you think of other languages?
@Blackcat: Do you remember your thoughts when creating association football pitch (Q61105129) 29 January 2019‎? -- Jagulin (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Then and . We should to find other parts of association football pitch (Q61105129). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
To clarify the way pitch (Q2310214) is different from sports field (Q1202618), I think it makes sense to say that the former is a "thing" rather than a "place". The first should not be of class sports venue (Q1076486), I'd say. As such, association football pitch (Q8524) should be the "thing" needed to play soccer and the alias "soccer field" actually refer to the place, actually a (and the concepts should be separated into different items). If that's accepted, the place only needs the association football pitch (Q8524) and the difference is conceptual (they inherit different classes).
association football venue (Q1154710) on the other hand needs both association football pitch (Q8524) (for the game) and bleacher (Q2067349) (for audience). In addition I can't think of a stadium without scoreboard (Q614379) and changing room (Q1070054).
association football pitch (Q61105129) is a super class of both association football venue (Q1154710) and the simple "football field". The difference is hierarchical (one inherits the other). We could add statements like "may have spectator space", but that's not very useful. The only thing required to separate it from the generic sports venue (Q1076486) is the association football pitch (Q8524) and the intention to play soccer. I believe that is the only "part" we can assign to it. When there are no players nor the ball, it's still a soccer venue (because it was made for their purpose). Do you have other suggestions of what is needed for a soccer venue?
association football pitch (Q8524) currently subclass both sports field (Q1202618) and pitch (Q2310214). I think it should only be the latter, but will wait with the change to get some confirmation. Jagulin (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

End of careerEdit

How to understand if an athlete completed his/her sportive career ? I would use occupation (P106) with a end time (P582) qualifier (See Francesco Totti (Q20110) as example). --FabC (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is the simplest solution. But with comebacks and so on, a career is often not really over ... :-)
Another approach would be to add all data about participations at sports competitions to the athlete item, and infer the career timespan from the range of dates of those sports competitions. --MisterSynergy (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sports records on WikidataEdit

Yesterday I was thinking that on Wikidata we can collect World (but also Continental an National) records, and their procressions, in sports. I try to explain myself with an example with an athletics record ( Yiyi
Сидик из ПТУ
  Notified participants of WikiProject Athletics, @Sannita:): it would be useful to have, for example, the item "World record in men's 100 meters" with the following structure:

And so on, with all the record holders. What do you think about this? It can be useful, for example, to keep updated record lists on Wikipedia in many languages with a single edit on wikidata. --Yiyi .... (talk!) 10:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

At first we can create property for items like 100 metres (Q164761). It can be link to items like you descriped or string with result and additional qualifiers. But if we are going to have something like Poland’s national record for girls under 19 it will overload the items of disciplines. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also important to remember that a record can have more than one holder at a time. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Already exists record held (P1000) and men's 100 metres world record (Q30748015). Joao4669 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Here the tree of the classess already available. Indeed is a mix of record types, an upper sport records subclass would help.--FabC (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We do already have record held (P1000) and record or record progression (P2869) to manage sports record-related items in Wikidata. Both are not of much use here in my opinion, and both are not used a lot yet.
  • Instead of a combination of sport (P641), sports discipline competed in (P2416), sex or gender (P21), "indoor/outdoor" something, etc, I suggest to use competition class (P2094) with proper values such as men's 100 metres (Q55243390), women's 100 metres (Q55243435), and so on. Those "competition class items" have to be set up once for every type of sport, and depending on the possible combinations there can be quite some items (up to order of 100 per type of sport, sometimes even more). However, if that is done we can use it quite efficiently, and querying is also very effective as competition class (P2094) is a transitive property.
  • Another thing to consider is whether we want to have one item per discipline (with each record as a statement + qualifiers), or one item per new record (with less qualifiers and more main values). I tend to prefer the latter, as it gives some more flexibility which we need for the various different types of sports and their needs.
  • Statements such as record 9.58 s and the like do not really work. A record can be a time (running events), vertical (pole vault/high jump) or horizontal (horizontal jump, throwing events) distance, number of points (heptathlon, …), etc; consider complexity from other types of sport as well. We would need to figure out how to express this in statements.
MisterSynergy (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
We also need items of athletes to be able to indicate the progression of their records as well as records status even if his latest personal record does not have this status (for example, in 2011 he set the youth record of Belgium, in 2013 set the National record of Belgium, since 2015 he has competed for Tanzania, in 2017 he set a World record, but remains the National record holder of Belgium with a 2013 result). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
"Personal best" records should better be handled differently. Ideally, we'd have somewhat complete participation data with participant in (P1344): (some event) with results qualifiers in the athlete profiles. It should be sufficient to mark personal best performances with a suitable qualifier. In case of world records (Olympic records, continental records, maybe national records) we could use statement is subject of (P805) qualifiers to link to a record item. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we should have links to all starts of Usain Bolt (Q1189) at his item or links to all matches of Lionel Messi (Q615) at his item. It will notably complicate the work on the pages of the items of athletes if we will overload them with hundreds of links to all their starts items. There must be some rational limit when we stop using inverse links. It's OK to have link to Moscow (Q649) in place of birth (P19), but not OK to have inverse links to people at Moscow (Q649). I’ll also notice that there are definitely results that only the date is known about, we won’t be able to tie them to event and it should not become an obstacle to the possibility of indicating a personal record. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
It definitely works for Usain Bolt (Q1189) to list all relevant participations on his item page, and that includes personal bests and other records. For association football players, it is indeed questionable whether all matches should be listed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
It should be noted that Usain Bolt (Q1189) page takes a long time to load and participant in (P1344) statements has many redundant qualifiers like country (P17) or part of (P361) which can be stored in events items. Even more absurd the presence of these qualifiers at participant (P710) statements of 2009 Toronto Festival of Excellence – men's 100 metres (Q55258460). I don’t see any point in duplicating the results on the items of competitions and items of athletes. It should be stored and, if necessary, edited in one place. Needless duplication of information about personal records of Usain Bolt (Q1189) is also observed in the properties sports discipline competed in (P2416) and personal best (P2415). personal best (P2415) qualifiers for sports discipline competed in (P2416) statements are simply redundant but point in time (P585) qualifiers for sports discipline competed in (P2416) are wrong. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you: we should avoid such duplication. That particular item was a test cast for User:WikiTrackBot, thus it got a little more attention than required :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of participantsEdit

Can we put the number of participants (P1132) in the leagues artitles like here? Or the number of participants (P1132) is only to use in the exactly year of this competition like here? Or both? Thanks. @&beer&love: --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vanbasten 23: We can use number of participants (P1132) in both :
_ sport competition ___ sports competition (Q13406554) - evolution record of number of participants with date
_YEAR___ sports season (Q27020041) - one value
--&beer&love (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense to me, because with the sports season (Q27020041) would be enough to get the evolution, but I'll take whatever's decided. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Someone will be at Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 next weekend in Berlin. I would like to talk with you about my bot to collect your ideas on improving the biographies of athletes. Greetings. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi @&beer&love: We are considering a World Championship like a season or it´s only like a sport event? Thanks --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I undid that. It is of course not a season. --MisterSynergy (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Logically, if item has sports season of league or competition (P3450) property then this is sports season (Q27020041). And we have English alias recurring sports edition for it. What is the difference from 1998 FIFA World Cup (Q101730) here? Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
It is wrong in 1998 FIFA World Cup (Q101730) as well.
We ever had a slightly different model for simple sports competitions and seasons of leagues:
  • Regular sports competitions, usually 1 day to ~4 weeks in time, are modelled with the usual type-token (class-instance) approach. This is kind of the Wikidata standard approach and it is of course also valid for sports competitions.
  • Seasons of leagues, however, do *not* work that way, and we use sports season of league or competition (P3450) for them instead. A league is technically an (instance of) organization, thus one cannot instanciate seasons from it.
A season typically lasts at least 3 months, usually more like 6 to 12 months. If the sport competition is shorter in time, it is very likely not a season, and should neither use sports season of league or competition (P3450) nor something like instance of (P31): sports season (Q27020041).
Unfortunately, many users meanwhile try to force the season model to non-seasoned competitions. We need to consolidate this at some point. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
In Russian labels of sports season of league or competition (P3450) and sports season (Q27020041) there are not season word but tournament is using. I think we should always use instance of (P31) sports season (Q27020041) (or other subclasses of recurrent event edition (Q27968055)) and sports season of league or competition (P3450) for editions of sports competitions. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
And I find it unnecessary to calculate the months of tournaments duration because we have cases like with Soviet Cup (Q647690) where 1936 Soviet Cup (Q4243939) was played from July to August of 1936 but 1990–91 Soviet Cup (Q4243990) was played from April of 1990 to June of 1991. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
professional sports league (Q15991290) is a sublass of recurring sporting event (Q18608583), I think it's right so we can use sports season of league or competition (P3450) for National Hockey League (Q1215892) or Premier League (Q9448) seasons. I don't think that we need other property for FIFA World Cup (Q19317) editions. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The property sports season of league or competition (P3450) was *not* proposed to replace the instance-of relations completely for sport competitions; it was specifically proposed to handle "seasons of leagues". As some cup events such as DFB-Pokal (Q150880) are also held as a season, but not organized in a league, there was the necessity to add "competition" to the label. Nevertheless, for German and English at least the current labels (and all past labels) are not compatible with non-seasoned sport competitions, and the same applies to sports season (Q27020041).
However in general, that property's labels have been constantly subject to changes due to the heavy mis-use of it in order to align the scope with the mis-use, and that is very bad practice. I am not surprised that there is now apparently a slightly different meaning in different languages. I have raised the issue of an informal re-definition at the property's talk page in 2017, but there was not much input and to my knowledge, broadening of P3450's scope has never been thoroughly discussed anywhere. As it is pretty much at odds with usual Wikidata standards (handle this with class/instance relations), I would clearly oppose such a broadening in scope anyways. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the use on competitions is correct. It's a season of a competition. Clubs aren't in scope as they have a different property. --- Jura 08:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The simplest solution to the problem lies on the surface - to recognize this property as suitable for all types of competitions from the national league and cups to Paralympic Games (Q73633) and Asian Archery Championships (Q4508905). In all cases, an obvious link to the main tournament item like FIFA World Cup (Q19317), tennis at the Summer Olympics (Q270163) or DFL-Supercup (Q156973) needed. The most intuitive solution will always use the same property for this and so I'm not surprised that now it doesn’t work the way you describe. As for instance of (P31), we should expect items like ice hockey national league season or NHL season here, not direct links to National Hockey League (Q1215892). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
As I said, it was not proposed like that, and it would be different from the rest of Wikidata that uses a class/instance ontology for such things. In other words: using P3450 only and a dummy "instance of: sport season" would make substantial parts of unseasoned sport competition content less accessible as data users are just not aware of this very special situation. I think your proposed solution to use P3450 for all sport competitions, particularly unseasoned ones, is just wrong—not "simple".
The term "season" in general refers to a substantial timespan of a year with an annual repetition of seasons. Applied to the field of sport competitions, this character is very similar. I personally do not have any problems to determine whether a competition has a seasoned or unseasoned format. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems rather consist with other fields. A book is generally an instance of edition, not an instance of a specific work. I think the opposite would make books harder to maintain. --- Jura 11:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Nevertheless, we observe that by default the property is interpreted by the participants differently, as a result of which, looking at the actual situation, in some languages, including Russian, the words season and league disappeared from the label, which is now called "which sports competition is this edition of?". If it works with league seasons, then it works with domestic Cup seasons. If it works with the domestic Cup seasons, then it works with domestic Supercup seasons. If it works with domestic Supercup seasons, then it works with the FIFA World Cup editions. And I can see the benefit from the fact that 2010 FIFA World Cup (Q176883) has sports season (Q27020041) as instance of (P31) with FIFA World Cup (Q19317) has not it. This helps to separate items of tournaments from items of their regular editions. A separate property for domestic leagues and cups but not applicable for domestic Supercups looks strange and I don’t see the benefits of this approach, I see only inconsistency. Or, if today we consider the FIFA Club World Cup (Q223366) to be an annual seasonal tournament, and in a couple of years FIFA will start holding it every 4 years, then it will be somehow strange to use a different approach, and, most importantly, I don’t see any goal in this cleverness. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi, @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): and I are discussing about if big-game hunting (Q4904849) should be considered sport as he has put it here, do you think it's right? Thank you. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Next and previousEdit

It makes sense for you to put followed by (P156) to one article and part of (P361) of another. Like this article that i changed, for example. Thank you. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


Hi. I was seeing changes in articles and I have seen that this element men's water polo (Q59689882) has been created to introduce in water polo competitions as well (edition). It is right? @&beer&love: Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A mixture of male competition with title competition has been detected.

That is, in some languages ​​it is only male sport. In others it includes male and female. --&beer&love (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For example, this edition. We don´t need that, because is a human. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Recently, it was decided not to add in humans. --&beer&love (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

MisterSynergy (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, perfect. But then we need to indicate the concrete sport, it is not worth to put sport as in this occasion. Now I'm going to remove the athlete (Q2066131) in the occupation (P106) of biographies to indicate a particular sport, and with that should be the same. 25777 articles use women's sports (Q920057) in competition class (P2094). Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Club Identifier Netherlands Handball AssociationEdit

Hi All,

I've submitted a proposal to add the official number of the Netherlands Handbal association as an Identifier. You can find the proposal here.

Support and feedback would be much appreciated!

Layka100 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Any cricket fans here?Edit

At the moment Right-arm Leg spin (Q1520158) covers both left-arm bowlers and right-arm bowlers, so that someone like Monty Panesar (Q3107272) now appears to be a right-arm bowler based on what his Wikidata item says. Have there been any discussions about breaking this information into handedness handedness (P552) and then using bowling style (P2545) to refer to stuff like leg spin (Q1480954)? Richard Nevell (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: You mean that the statement Monty Panesar (Q3107272) handedness (P552) right-handedness (Q3039938) is added to the data object Monty Panesar (Q3107272). In relation to this example, what should the statement Monty Panesar (Q3107272) bowling style (P2545) Right-arm Leg spin (Q1520158) be changed to? --Gymnicus (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Gymnicus Panesar's bowling style is slow left-arm orthodox, which at the moment is treated as an alternative label for Right-arm Leg spin (Q1520158). My thinking is that the item should be split at least into items for the left- and right-handed versions. Adding handedness (P552) as a qualifier to bowling style (P2545) wouldn't work as it would essentially be saying he's a right-handed bowler how is left handed. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Electronic sportsEdit

Hi. With my bot I usually make certain changes and recently I have been told about one that is problematic. When pro gamer (Q4379701) appears in occupation, I put esports (Q300920) in sports, and that person may not be engaged in playing sports games. Reviewing this I have found that I had since when they indicate in sport FIFA (Q326704) put esports (Q300920) and pass FIFA (Q326704) to sport discipline, which is not bad, but I do the same with Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (Q842146), League of Legends (Q223341) and StarCraft (Q290106), and it is not correct, but where do I put that data ? Any ideas? Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Sports".