User talk:PKM

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see Archive/. The latest archive is located at Archive/2023.
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, PKM!

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

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

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

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

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

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

re call to the bar[edit]

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

Welcome to the Structured Commons focus group![edit]

Hello! Thank you very much for signing up to the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

How to organize ourselves?

This focus group is new and experimental, and I welcome your tips and thoughts on how we can organize this in the most convenient and productive way. For now, I have posted a few separate topics on the focus group's talk page. Please add your questions there too! If we all add that page to our watchlist, that's probably a good way to stay up to date with current discussions. Steinsplitter has also initiated a brand new IRC channel specifically for Structured Commons: wikimedia-commons-sd (webchat) which we invite you to join. Please let me know if you have other ideas on how to work together.

Current updates

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback
  1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
  2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
  3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Representation of Wikidata at the Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Hi PKM, I'm contacting you because I would like your support and your comments on my proposal to represent the Wikidata community at the Wikimedia movement strategy process. I'm contacting you in private because you are a member of the Wikidata Community User Group and I thought that this could be relevant for you.--Micru (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What properties does Commons need?[edit]


Structured Commons will need properties to make statements about files. The development team is working on making the software ready to support properties; the question is, what properties does Commons need?

You can find more information and examples to help find properties in a workshop on Commons. Please participate and help fill in the list, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mapping relation type[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I actually think the fastener (Q2002016) as you changed me were a better superclass. joining technology (Q266328) does not seem to be about objects. Re-revert? What do you think? Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marsupium: Agreed! Changed it back. I'll making "buckling" for the technology. - PKM (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah very good also the buckling (Q55568280)! :) --Marsupium (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, but is something different. Perhaps rename to "buckle buckling"??? --Marsupium (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And by the way could we better point out the difference between malespenne (Q19380920) and clasp (Q2239762) if there is one? :) --Marsupium (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marsupium: AAT 300072663 is probably buckling (Q693104), but I'd need to read the Enwiki article in detail. We have lots of items with the same label in English; I don't think it's a problem as long as we have good descriptions (in fact I think it's helpful for editors who are looking for the right item to link).
malespenne (Q19380920) is a specific type of Norwegian clasp called a Maljespenne. The Norwegian-English dictionaries I've found translate it just as "clasp". I expect the right move is to make 'maljespenne' the default EN label and make it a subclass of "clasp". WE do that with many non-English clothing items in EN wiki. I can do that now. - PKM (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“I don't think it's a problem as long as we have good descriptions” Yes, you're right. The name is fine, yes!
Ah, that's good to know clasp (Q2239762) is the general clasp, so I will use it for c:Template:I18n/objects now, and it gets Thank you! --Marsupium (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

New discussion on Commons talk:Structured data[edit]

Hello. I've started a new, important discussion about creating properties for Commons on Wikidata. Please come join in, if the process is something that interests you or if you can help. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First step in creating "Associated Database"?[edit]

Greetings. I saw that you created the Cal OHP ID. Can you point me to where I can learn how to do that? I'm interested in doing same for the National Geologic Map Database. It describes geologic units and integrates the units with published maps and other publications. Requesting your advice. Thank you. -Trilotat (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trilotat: I'd love to help! You'll want to start at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science and use the form to create the proposal. A similar property is Australian Geological Provinces ID (P2742) - you can see the Property Proposal for that one here Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/49#P2742 and use it as a cheat sheet.
Some of the terminology is a bit confusing. "Represents" is the item associated with the new property, so U.S. Geologic Names Lexicon (Q59159827) for Geolex identifiers. The property name should probably be Geolex ID, description "identifer for a geological item in the United States National Geologic Map Database Geological Lexicon" or something like that. The formatter URL will be "$.html". Be sure to make at least three examples. I am terrible with REGEX, so I can't help with that (but someone probably will). Let me know when it's posted and I'll take a look, or ping me if you have questions (I still have trouble with these sometimes). - PKM (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PKM: I've pasted something together at Property_proposal/Natural_science. I welcome and appreciate any feedback. Thanks. -Trilotat (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trilotat: couple of things. Datatype should be "external-id". The Domain should be “Item”, not “term” (that’s for lexemes) - and more specific is better, so if geographical feature (Q618123) covers everything you can use that. And the formatter URL needs “.html” after the $ or it won’t work. Otherwise, looks good! - - PKM (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I've made corrections. I've left domain as item as the items are really hard to pin down. They might peek out all over the country. There couldn't be coordinates for such items. Thanks again. I hope someone comments. -Trilotat (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A digital map resource[edit]

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

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

Multilingual captions beta testing[edit]

The Structured Data on Commons team has begun beta testing of the first feature, multilingual file captions, and all community members are invited to test it out. Captions is based on designs discussed with the community[2][3] and the team is looking forward to hearing about testing. If all goes well during testing, captions will be turned on for Commons around the second week of January, 2019.

Multilingual captions are plain text fields that provide brief, easily translatable details of a file in a way that is easy to create, edit, and curate. Captions are added during the upload process using the UploadWizard, or they can be added directly on any file page on Commons. Adding captions in multiple languages is a simple process that requires only a few steps.

The details:

  • There is a help page available on how to use multilingual file captions.
  • Testing will take place on Beta Commons. If you don’t yet have an account set up there, you’ll need one.
  • Beta Commons is a testbed, and not configured exactly like the real Commons site, so expect to see some discrepancies with user interface (UI) elements like search.
  • Structured Data introduces the potential for many important page changes to happen at once, which could flood the recent changes list. Because of this, Enhanced Recent Changes is enabled as it currently is at Commons, but with some UI changes.
  • Feedback and commentary on the file caption functionality are welcome and encouraged on the discussion page for this post.
  • Some testing has already taken place and the team are aware of some issues. A list of known issues can be seen below.
  • If you discover a bug/issue that is not covered in the known issues, please file a ticket on Phabricator and tag it with the “Multimedia” tag. Use this link to file a new task already tagged with "Multimedia."

Known issues:


-- Keegan (WMF) (talk), for the Structured Data on Commons Team 20:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katrina Law's unsourced birthday[edit]

At Wikidata:Project chat#Workflow you're stating that, to get rid of the unsourced birthday, someone must provide a reliable source to essentially 'prove' the birthday is "unknown". Am I reading that right? -- 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s my recommendation to prevent the unknown date being overwritten by a date from another source, yes. Otherwise any date with a source will be accepted as better than nothing. - PKM (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)[edit]

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement...

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday, 9 November or Thursday, 10 November 2019. Captions are a feature to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:

  1. Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons.
  2. Test out using captions on Beta Commons.
  3. Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have anything you'd like to say prior to release.

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a link to join, are on Meta.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the IRC office hour on Thursday. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data - development update, March 2019[edit]

This text is also posted on the Structured Data hub talk page. You can reply there with questions, comments, or concerns.

A development update for the current work by the Structured Data on Commons team:

After the release of multilingual file captions, work began on getting depicts and other statements ready for release. These were originally scheduled for release in February and into March, however there are currently two major blockers to finishing this work (T215642, T217157). We will know more next week about when depicts and statements can likely be ready for testing and then release; until then I've tentatively updated the release schedule.

Once the depicts feature is ready for testing, it will take place in two stages on TestCommons. The first is checking the very basics; is the design comfortable, how does the simple workflow of adding/editing/removing statements work, and building up help and process pages from there. The second part is a more detailed test of depicts and other statements, checking the edge-case examples of using the features, bugs that did not come up during simple testing, etc. Additionally we'll be looking with the community for bugs in interaction with bots, gadgets, and other scripts once the features are live on Commons. Please let me know if you're interesting in helping test and fix these bugs if they show up upon release, it is really hard to find them in a test environment or, in some cases, bugs won't show up in a testing environment at all.

One new thing is definitely coming within the next few weeks, pending testing: the ability to search for captions. This is done using the inlabel keyword in search strings, and will be the first step in helping users find content that is specifically structured data. I'll post a notice when that feature is live and ready for use.

Thanks, let me know if you have questions about these plans. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data - early depicts testing[edit]

The Structured Data on Commons development team has the very basic version of depicts statements available for early testing on Test-Commons. You can add very basic depicts statements to the file page by going into the new “Structured Data” tab located below the "Open in Media Viewer button." You can use the Latest Files link in the left side nav bar to select existing images, or use the UploadWizard to upload new ones to test with (although those images won’t actually show up on the site). The test site is not a fully functional replica of Commons, so there may be some overall problems in using the site, but you should be able to get a general idea of what using the feature is like.

Early next week I will call for broad, community-wide testing of the feature similar to what we did for Captions, with instructions for testing, known bugs, and a dedicated space to discuss the feature as well as a simple help page for using statements. Until then, you're welcome to post on the SDC talk page with what you might find while testing depicts.

Thanks in advance for trying it out, you'll be hearing more from me next week. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Property proposal[edit]

Hi. I’d sure appreciate any input on the proposal at here. Thanks, Trilotat (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trilotat: Looks good. I see someone added the regex, so I don't think any other changes to the proposal are needed. It looks like it will go through after the usual week for comment. - PKM (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PKM: Thanks. I've currently got a list of ~16000 lines that may (or may not) have matching QIDs. I'm scraping the NGMDb for all ~163000 items. I will:
  • determine the matching QID (I think I need to figure out how to build a Mix-n-Match catalogue.)
  • add the ID to the items using QuickStatements or Mix-n-Match if I figure it out.
Thank you again for your kindness and support. Trilotat (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trilotat:, you're most welcome. This is a great project. - PKM (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of religion[edit]

Why did you remove this? Multichill (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Multichill: In my mind, an object doesn't have a religion, though it may depict a religious subject. But "religion of a person, organization or religious building, or associated with this subject" allows it, so I'll defer to you on this subject. :-) - PKM (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some previous discussion at Property talk:P140#Work of art.
We want to relate an object to a religion, this is currently the way to go. Subclassing religious art (Q2864737) didn't seem to be right. I hope that we'll also have works from other religions documented like this in the future. Multichill (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: Thanks for the link. I'll check it out ... some of the textiles in museums I am working are religious art, so I can tag them. (I found one yesterday classed by the museum as Islamic art depicting "Christ in Glory". Very curious!) - PKM (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
en:Jesus in Islam? Multichill (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: Coptic from Abbasid Egypt, actually, I think, but it doesn’t specifically say Coptic, just that it’s an icon, was formerly exhibited in the Coptic gallery, and is from Egypt, Abbasid period.[4] I’m going to see if I can find a book reference or catalog with more info on it. - PKM (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Structured Data - testing qualifiers for depicts[edit]

As you might have seen, testing is underway for adding qualifiers to depicts statements. If you have not left feedback already, the Structured Data on Commons development team is very interested in hearing about your experience using qualifiers on the file page and in the UploadWizard. To get started you can visit Test-Commons and chose a random file to test out, or upload your own file to try out the UploadWizard. Questions, comments, and concerns can be left on the Structured data talk page and the team will address them as best as they can. Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ontology for dresses[edit]

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

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

Hi PKM, I was wondering if you have plans to use Mix'n'match on the ADS author dataset? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Richard Nevell: I'd love to. Their Linked Open Data dataset is archaeological sites/projects, not people, so I assume we'd need to screen-scrape this (unless I missed something). (Access point page is here.) I'm not sure the site license allows this. We could ask someone to take a look ...? - PKM (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd been meaning to email Julian Richards about it as he's closely involved with the ADS. Now there's a property for the authors that would give us a good place to start so I'll get in touch with him next week and see where it leads. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds great, thanks so much! - PKM (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data on Commons - IRC office hours this week, 18 July[edit]

The Structured Data team is hosting an IRC office hour this week on Thursday, 18 July, from 17:00-18:00 UTC. Joining information as well as date and time conversion is available on Meta. Potential topics for discussion are the testing of "other statements", properties that may need to be created for Commons on Wikidata soon, plans for the rest of SDC development, or whatever you might want to discuss. The development team looks forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data - testing other statements[edit]

You can now test using other statements for structured data on the file page on Test-Commons. Some datatypes are not yet available, such a coordinates, but further support will be extended soon. You can find more information about testing on the SDC talk page. The team looks forward to your feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ontology / Vocabulary for Fashion[edit]

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

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

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging[edit]

The development team is starting work on one of the last planned features for SDC v1.0, a lightweight tool to suggest depicts tags for images. I've published a project page for it, please have a look. I plan to share this page with everyone on Commons much more broadly in the coming days. The tool has been carefully designed to try to not increase any workload on Commons volunteers; for starters, it will be opt-in for auto-confirmed users only and will not generate any sort of backlog here on Commons. Additionally, the tool is highly privacy-minded for the contributors and publicly-minded for the third party being used, in this case Google. The implementation and usage notes contain more information about these and other potential concerns as a starting place. It's really important that the tool is implemented properly from the start, so feedback is welcome. Questions, comments, concerns are welcome on the talk page and I will get answers as quickly as possible as things come up. On the talk page you can also sign up to make sure you're a part of the feedback for designs and prototype testing. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data - modeling data[edit]

As you may have seen, there are community discussions underway on how to best model structured data on Commons.

Direct links to pages created so far:

Please visit and participate in topics you might be interested in when you get some time. Thanks. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging designs[edit]

I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page for catalogues[edit]

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


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

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

Please try to check for duplicate entries. Most of the data inserted belongs to Andreas Langer (Q78586816) --Emu (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC) @Emu: thanks for catching that. - PKM (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

  • @Jarekt: I don’t remember doing that, so it was probably a fat-finger on the iPad. Thanks for checking. Merge away! - PKM (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Not sure if you had read my response the last time. Please don't re-add the qualifier to properties where it had been removed from. As you seem to prefer caps: "DO NOT RE-RUN BATCH". Hope it's clear. --- Jura 04:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jura1: if I re-added the property constraint, that was certainly a mistake - I am tracking the reverted items in a spreadsheet and removing them from any future batches. No need to be snarky about it. (But there was consensus for “universal constraint” on these, see the Phabricator ticket I added you to.) in any case, I am done with these now. PKM (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons - Media Search[edit]


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

Interview Invitation[edit]


I noticed your message on Wikidata project chat page, which led me to look up your profile. Thank you for all the hard work!

I’m reaching out to you because I’m working on a research project about understanding what motivates editors like you to contribute to Wikidata. We’re also interested in learning about how you feel your contributions are being used outside of Wikidata. Since you are such an active community member, I thought you might also be interested in helping to build the broader community’s knowledge about Wikidata, and why it matters.

If you’re interested, let’s schedule a time to talk over Zoom, or whichever platform you prefer. You could leave a message or fill in a questionnaire. The conversation should take about 30 min.

Hope you have a great day,

Chuankaz (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chuankaz: thanks for asking. I filled out your survey form. - PKM (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hirsch & Drecoll[edit]

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

@Jane023: Yes it's quite complicated. Do you have Wikipedia Library access to Christoph Drecoll: Rediscovering the Viennese Worth (Q96205711)? They state that Marguerite Wagner was the lead designer in the Vienna establishment from the Drecoll purchase in 1895, then started the Paris "branch" in 1902 (which was changed to a separate joint-stock company based in London (!) in 1908 before the Vienna branch was sold off in 1909). I haven't captured all of that in the article, but I have added the two other companies Christoph Drecoll founded. The problem with separating the Vienna and Paris pieces into two businesses is that the labels "Drecoll - Wien - Paris" on items in museums could belong to either one. Perhaps best to model the existing "Drecoll" item from 1895-1908/9, with successor companies as the London/Paris company from 1908 and the spun-off Vienna company from 1909-1937. Of course it's not certain that the German researchers who wrote the Costume article have everything exactly right, especially if they don't have access to all the Dutch records. FWIW, French Wikipedia gives Marguerite de Wagner's maiden name as "Margharita Van Speybrouck" but I don't know where they got that - it's not in the citation. I am also very curious about the "Besançon" name - clearly the Wagners used it, but their daughter's wedding announcement says she married "Pierre Besançon"[5]. I have seen this interpreted as he took her name, or that "Marguerite de Besançon-Wagner" should only refer to the daughter AKA Maggy Rouff, and not to the mother. It is, as the authors of the Costume article acknowledge (and you have confirmed) a mess.
Thanks for continuing to work with this. All we can do is record what various sources say, and model the results as best we can. - PKM (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes you got me involved, so it's another ball to juggle for me going forward. I have seen the Van Speybrouck name pretty often and that could be a very good lead. My biggest confusion was about who a "floor manager" in Amsterdam might be managing if she didn't speak the lingo, but that name implies bi-lingualism. With painter families you can trace the women through portraits disguised as genre paintings, but with fashion designers I have no idea! I thought it was very interesting to read that Christoph Drecoll made a name through costume design and royalty - travelling shows and masquerade balls were very big at the close of the 19th century and are also under-documented. There could be clues there as well. Jane023 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round[edit]


I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round[edit]


I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round[edit]


I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woodworking Tools at Mercer Museum[edit]

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

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

Woman sewing, by Liotard[edit]

A bit tricky to figure out from the French what the status is, but I guess it was restituted to someone. Anyway, it's uploaded, has an item, and you can throw your cap at it now! Young woman sewing (Q103987182) Jane023 (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jane023: thanks!! - PKM (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

non-Wikimedia Wikimedia disambiguation pages[edit]

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

St[.] Leger[edit]

Just informed the creator of the item. May you check my edits as well? #tia. Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors[edit]

Dear PKM,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at the King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me on or use this form with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.



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

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

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

Walthamstow Tapestry[edit]

This is completely out of my comfort zone, and I noticed there were even some images on Commons (!!) that I put in a category and linked Walthamstow Tapestry (Q108914045). I don't know if you know anything about how to preserve the metadata for such images going forward (I assume they will be deleted soon). If you want to zoom in I linked the Google art image. Jane023 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jane023:, thanks, I'll see what can be done. - PKM (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jane023 It took some digging, but I found the object info page at Bonnefanten Museum. Added a bunch of stuff (and created a company, and a textile trademark ...) PKM (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, thanks - I knew I could depend on you for a tapestry, no matter when it was created! Jane023 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpenRefine and Structured Data on Commons: community meetup, February 22[edit]

OpenRefine logo
OpenRefine logo

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for updates about Structured Data on Commons (SDC) functionalities in OpenRefine.

The OpenRefine team has made quite a bit of progress in the past months. We warmly invite you to a meetup with updates and a first demo of the newly developed SDC editing functionalities in OpenRefine. Bring your questions!

  • When? Tuesday, February 22, at 15:00-17:00 UTC (check the time in your timezone).
  • For whom? For anyone who is curious about the current status of SDC support in OpenRefine!
  • Where? Online, via Zoom. The event's info page has the link.
  • The meeting will be recorded and the recording will be published to Wikimedia Commons afterwards.

Check the event page for more info. With kind regards, SFauconnier (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpenRefine and SDC updates: user survey and monthly office hours[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for updates about the Structured Data on Commons (SDC) features that are currently developed for OpenRefine.

Short survey for SDC features in OpenRefine[edit]

OpenRefine logo

OpenRefine is running a short survey to learn about user needs and expectations for its new SDC features. If you upload files to Wikimedia Commons and/or edit structured data there, please help by filling in this survey!

Monthly OpenRefine and Wikimedia office hours[edit]

OpenRefine's community meetup of February 22 was very well attended. You can see its recording, slides and notes here. The team now hosts monthly, informal office hours for Wikimedians (online, via Zoom). Upcoming office hours are:

The Zoom link of the next office hour will be posted on OpenRefine's info page on Wikimedia Commons. Please drop by and say hi!

All the best! SFauconnier (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


[6] is missing an "n".

Are you joking at [7]?--Stricherboy (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thank you. PKM (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

motif items[edit]

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

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

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

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

UNBIS Thesaurus[edit]

I've seen this ID at choice of technology (Q116685658). Wouldn't it be worthwile to have a property for UNBIS Thesaurus? Best wishes-- Kaila Rolland (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is one UNBIS Thesaurus ID (P8370), but it's not connected to the Mix'n'Match tool. I'll request that fix. - PKM (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is fixed now, thanks for pointing out the problem! - PKM (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stone tools[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

Automated report of empty item: Q118613845[edit]

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]