User talk:PKM

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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]

Art UK venue ID (P1602)[edit]

Art UK venue ID (P1602) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted Bobbin lace item?[edit]

It looks like the Bobbin lace is somehow corrupt, editing does not work. As you seem to be the last to make changes, could that be the cause? Would you mind to undo? Poljo (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried again and the save buttons reappeared. Sorry to have bothered you. Poljo (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Alfaro y Gamez (Q2388565)[edit]

Hi PKM, I was wondering why you added multiple RKD claims? These all redirect to the same item. Multichill (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@multichill: so the links would work both ways. Should we not do that? I can back them out. - PKM (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These other links are like the redirects we have here: Don't delete them, but we keep them for convenience. The items are showing up in this report. Multichill (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SIPA ID (P1700)[edit]

The property you requested is done. --Fralambert (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fralambert: Thank you! - PKM (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGPC ID (P1702)[edit]

The property you requested is done. You can check the constraint in the talk page, to see if they are correct. --Fralambert (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AAT white tie (tail coat)[edit]

Hi friend! About this revert: if you look at the non-EN articles (Фрак, Frac, Frak), they are about the formal coat. What would you match that AAT id to, if not this WD item?? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)[edit]


Just wanted to say thanks for all the matches you did on Mix n' Match for the UNESCO Atlas of World Languages in Danger dataset. I'm trying to get the dataset imported for the Wikipedia Language Conference in early July. Can I ask if you used any tricks to match so many or did you do it all by hand? It will be great once we also have the Glottolog database integrated as well but there are 15,000 matches to do for that one.....

Thanks again

--John Cummings (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Glottolog catalogue to Wikidata[edit]


I started a discussion about matching the Glottolog catalogue a little more automatically on project chat that you might be interested in. I really don't want to have to match 15,000 items by hand :)


--John Cummings (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: Me neither. - PKM (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up the Atlas of World Languages in Danger import[edit]


We've now done with Mix n' Match (mainly thanks to you). I think there are two steps left to clean the data up:

  1. Find items with multiple AWLD ID numbers, I think this will be caused by several dialects being misunderstood as the same thing. I think I should create an item for each dialect and then somehow link them using a property to the main item. Any ideas how to do this?
  2. Find multiple items with the same ID number, I think this will be caused by duplicate items.

Does this sound like a sensible plan? Am I missing something? Can you think what property I should use to link dialects and languages? I don't think its 'has part'. I'll ask on the project chat.

Thanks again

--John Cummings (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: For the dialects I have added, I used P134 (P134) on the parent language and made the dialect(s) <subclass of> the parent. See Selkup (Q34008).
Whether a "child" language is a dialect or just a separate community of speakers is a challenge. I think we should ideally have some sort of source for saying X is a dialect of Y (in the UNESCO records or in the Wikipedia info box for the parent language).
Here's an example: For Mohawk (Q13339), UNESCO has seven codes based on places/communities, but the en:Mohawk language article describes three "main" dialects only one of which is immediately identifiable as "matching" one of the UNESCO languages (Kanesatake). There's probably no harm in calling each of these variants a "dialect" (after all, there is not always consensus among linguists as to whether a particular language is a dialect or some other sort of variant). It would probably be better to have the separate records and if there's ever a comprehensive languages project in WD, the future project team can tweak whether an item is a dialect or not.
I do think we need to make a minimal set of statements for any items we create in this way: <instance of> dialect (Q33384), subclass of [parent language], indigenous to (P2341) [place or ethnic group or both]. - PKM (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nappes d'autel[edit]

Thank you for your work with textiles in the Palissy database. I am going to look into English translations for the labels and descriptions of these.

The items with dénomination: nappe d'autel in the database would be better as instance of (P31) altar cloth (Q869547) instead of tablecloth (Q536168). Is that a change that your bot could make? - PKM (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok :
SELECT ?item ?label WHERE { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q869547. }
Try it!
Gzen92 [discuter] 08:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing creator with RKDimages link[edit]

Hi PKM, thanks for helping with Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Missing creator with RKDimages link! Last week I created a lot of the missing painters so we should be able to match most of them with existing items. Help much appreciated. Multichill (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! - PKM (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just created Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Top collections missing creator. We seem to have a slight backlog ;-)
14190 paintings without a creator set. The top two collection account for more than half of these. Multichill (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Wow, okay! Challenge accepted. On it, also working on ~6000 geographic items in NARA catalog, so I’ll work on one until I get burnt out and then switch back and forth. That’s been productive for me. - PKM (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, switching between jobs before you hate any of them is a good way to stay motivated. Just cherry pick the collection. Take for example the Royal Collection, it still has all the easy ones! Normally I would upload collection, match it up, go to the next collection. Here I uploaded a bunch of collections in a row so that's why we have some backlog. Multichill (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re call to the bar[edit]

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

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]

Structured Commons focus group update, Nov 21, 2017[edit]

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

IRC office hour today, 21 November, 18.00 UTC
  • The IRC office hour about Structured Commons takes place at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will give updates about the project, and you can ask us questions. The log will be published afterwards.
Tools update

Many important community tools for Commons and Wikidata will benefit from an update to structured data in the future. You can help indicate which tools will need attention:

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[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]

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)[edit]


There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons: , regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First structured licensing conversation on Commons[edit]


The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual captions testing is available[edit]


The early prototype for multilingual caption support is available for testing. More information on how to sign up to test is on Commons. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[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]

Structured Data on Commons IRC Office Hour, Tuesday 26 June[edit]


There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Tuesday, 26 June from 18:00-19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find more details, as well as date and time conversion, at the IRC Office Hours page on Meta.

Thanks, I look forward to seeing you there if you can make it. -- Keegan (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[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]

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]

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

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

buckle (Q1135567)[edit]

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]

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

@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]
“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]

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

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

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

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

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

Structured Data feedback - Depicts statements draft requirements[edit]


A slide presentation of the draft requirements for depicts statements on file pages is up on Commons. Please visit this page on Commons to review the slides and discuss the draft. Thank you, see you on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi PKM! I didn't quite understand this edit (diff) on Highland (Q208279). The statements on the Wikidata item appear to be those for a geographic area, so the original sitelink en:Highland (council area) would seem to be correct. If en:The_Highland_Council was unlinked, it would seem appropriate to create a new item for it, connected to the previous by applies to jurisdiction (P1001); with legislative body (P194) or perhaps authority (P797) in the inverse direction. Similarly for City of Edinburgh (Q2379199). Jheald (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jheald: Ah, I was going through enwiki articles with no Wikidata item. You're right, I should make those changes. - PKM (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
btw, if you happened to be anywhere near Inverness or Highland in the next three weeks (as opposed to your usual 7000 miles away), we just got in to Mrs Jheald's house above Loch Ness this afternoon, and you would be most welcome. Jheald (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald:Thank you, that would be a treat! But alas, 7000 miles and one expired passport away. Enjoy! - PKM (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: Argh, The Highland Council (Q28530249) already exists and Duplicity (or my eyes) missed it. This one is all fixed now I think. - PKM (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data feedback - structured licensing and copyright[edit]

Mockups of structured licensing and copyright statements on file pages are posted. Please have a look over the examples and leave your feedback on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[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]

Structured Data - upcoming changes to viewing old file page revisions[edit]

How old revisions of file pages work are likely going to have to change for structured data. There is information about the change on the SDC hub talk page, please read it over and leave feedback if you have any. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data - IRC office hours today, 4 October[edit]

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons today, 4 October 2018, from 17:00-18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find date/time conversion, as well as a link to join the chat in your browser if needed, on the IRC Office hours page on Meta. I look forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data - search prototype[edit]

There is a search prototype for structured data on Commons available. Please visit the search prototype page on the structured data hub for information on testing and feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Virginia[edit]

There's now a mix-n-match catalog for adding items for Encyclopedia Virginia ID (P5981). Trivialist (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trivialist: That's fabulous, thank you! - PKM (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data - IRC office hour today, 1 November[edit]

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons today, 1 October 2018, from 17:00-18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find date/time conversion, as well as a link to join the chat in your browser if needed, on the IRC Office hours page on Meta. I realize this may be short notice for some people; I am experimenting with advanced notice times to see what works best for the most people, I'll be giving more warning before the next office hour. I look forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data - IRC office hour today, 1 November[edit]

The above message says 1 October in the body when it should say 1 November, as the subject line says. Apologies for making a new section by mass message, it's the only way to get this out quickly. See you in twenty minutes! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data - copyright and licensing statements[edit]

I've posted a second round of designs for modeling copyright and licensing in structured data. These redesigns are based off the feedback received in the first round of designs, and the development team is looking for more discussion. These designs are extremely important for the Commons community to review, as they deal with how copyright and licensing is translated from templates into structured form. I look forward to seeing you over there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[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]

@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]
@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]
@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]
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]

A digital map resource[edit]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]
@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]
@Trilotat:, you're most welcome. This is a great project. - PKM (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of religion[edit]

Why did you remove this? Multichill (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[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]
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]
@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]
en:Jesus in Islam? Multichill (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[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]

motif (Q1229071) items[edit]

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

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

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]

Ontology for dresses[edit]

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

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


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]

  • @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]
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]
That sounds great, thanks so much! - PKM (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[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]

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]

Ontology / Vocabulary for Fashion[edit]

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

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

Community Insights Survey[edit]

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

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

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

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]

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]


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]

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

Andrea Langer (Q65464843)[edit]

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]


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]

  • @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]



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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

Hirsch & Drecoll[edit]

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

@Jane023: Yes it's quite complicated. Do you have Wikipedia Library access to Christoph Drecoll: Rediscovering the Viennese Worth (Q96205711)? They state that Marguerite Wagner was the lead designer in the Vienna establishment from the Drecoll purchase in 1895, then started the Paris "branch" in 1902 (which was changed to a separate joint-stock company based in London (!) in 1908 before the Vienna branch was sold off in 1909). I haven't captured all of that in the article, but I have added the two other companies Christoph Drecoll founded. The problem with separating the Vienna and Paris pieces into two businesses is that the labels "Drecoll - Wien - Paris" on items in museums could belong to either one. Perhaps best to model the existing "Drecoll" item from 1895-1908/9, with successor companies as the London/Paris company from 1908 and the spun-off Vienna company from 1909-1937. Of course it's not certain that the German researchers who wrote the Costume article have everything exactly right, especially if they don't have access to all the Dutch records. FWIW, French Wikipedia gives Marguerite de Wagner's maiden name as "Margharita Van Speybrouck" but I don't know where they got that - it's not in the citation. I am also very curious about the "Besançon" name - clearly the Wagners used it, but their daughter's wedding announcement says she married "Pierre Besançon"[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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

Woodworking Tools at Mercer Museum[edit]

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

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

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]

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

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

non-Wikimedia Wikimedia disambiguation pages[edit]

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

St[.] Leger[edit]

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



The English miniature (Q107140614)[edit]

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

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

present in work (P1441)[edit]

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

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]

@Jane023:, thanks, I'll see what can be done. - PKM (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[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]
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]

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

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]

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]