Shortcut: WD:PP/WORK

Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Lexeme

See also[edit]

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2019/05.

Creative work[edit]

See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Infoboxes/works
Software products and brands, see: Wikidata:WikiProject Infoboxes/terms
Books, see: Wikidata:WikiProject Books

subject term (OR keyword)[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionterm or concept used to contextualize this item, for example via an external vocabulary, catalog, or other datasource
Representsindex term (Q1128340)
Data typeItem
Domaincreative work (Q17537576)
Allowed valuesany
ExampleA systematic arrangement of British plants :with an easy introduction to the study of botany (Q51423679)Great Britain (Q23666) + plant (Q756)
Planned useUpload a dataset of 225,000 subject keywords for books etc that we have items for from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (Q172266)
See alsomain subject (P921)


(See also the later comments in this discussion at WikiProject Books, in particular the comment by User:Valentina.Anitnelav, 10:56, 4 May 2018)

The Biodiversity Heritage Library (Q172266) (see Wikidata:WikiProject BHL) includes a dataset with 225,000 subject keywords for the books etc we have items for, that I would like to add to the relevant items here.

However, it seems to me that main subject (P921) is not the right property for the job. Consider a book like A systematic arrangement of British plants :with an easy introduction to the study of botany (Q51423679). Its "main subject" might be classified in library catalogues as "Botany -- Great Britain" and "Botany -- Ireland" (in fact, that is exactly what is stated for its subject at OCLC Worldcat).

But the keywords file gives keywords "Great Britain", "Ireland", and "Plants". However "Great Britain" is not the main subject of the book. Anyone looking for a book on "Great Britain" generally would be disappointed if a search returned this book, because it is not a book on Great Britain generally. Therefore IMO it would be wrong to record main subject (P921) = Great Britain (Q23666).

Instead, "Great Britain" is an aspect or a facet of the main subject of the book.

It's very useful to be able to record this, because one can then ask for the set of books which have "Great Britain" as a facet of their subject, and then what other facet-topics it is found in combination with, and thus progressively derive a narrower and narrower, more and more refined final solution set - a process known as faceted search (Q1519370).

This is therefore something valuable to be able to record. But these are not "main subject"s of the books, so P921 is not appropriate, and we would therefore benefit from having a new property for statements of this kind instead. Jheald (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A subject keyword is a main subject (P921). So what you propose is a "Schlagwortkette" (subject string / subject chain)? For creating "Keyword: Great Britain (Q23666) – subfield: plant (Q756)" we would need to add the qualifier series ordinal (P1545). Otherwise subject keyword + subject keyword = main subject (P921) + main subject (P921). --Kolja21 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kolja21: No, I don't think so. As I understand it, a P921 value should correspond to a complete "Schlagwortkette". This is why in English property P921 is called "main subject". An appropriate P921 for the book above would be a non-category item corresponding to Category:Flora of the United Kingdom (Q6324043).
That is why I am proposing this new property, for an individual Schlagwort from that Schlagwortkette.
Your suggestion of how series ordinal (P1545) might be used as a qualifier is interesting, although that information will not necessarily always be available (eg when just a list of keywords is supplied), nor necessarily unique (eg if both "Great Britain -- Botany" and "Botany -- Great Britain" were given as Schlagwortketten). Jheald (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support To summarize the discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Books#subject_areas_and_genres: There is a need to express that a book is written in (or of interest for) a certain academic discipline/subject area. Sometimes genre (P136) is used, but it is at least debatable if mathematics is a genre. To use main subject (P921) would lead to problems, too, as the academic discipline is rarely the main subject of a book written in it, leading to many false positives. This property could be used to indicate this information without "dumping" it into main subject (P921) (and making it more or less useless for some topics). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To avoid confusion in current use of main subject (P921). We would probably want to split off some of the aliases there (for example "keyword") that are not entire subjects in themselves. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very helpful for many of the books I add. - PKM (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question As usual with those kind of « fit all property », « a facet » is something undefined. What does this mean? The proposal does not say this. It just explain, totologically, « "Great Britain" is an aspect or a facet of the main subject of the book. » (it’s a facet because it’s a facet) . Actually, the book seem to be about the botany of some places in the world. « plant of great britain » seem to me a legitimate item, and instead we can use location and usual more precisely defined properties to describe this item. Why not doing this? This is the Wikidata way. But I guess this kind of argument is bound to fail when I’ll get tired of saying this again and again… Put another way, if we want to explain what a facet it, we have to put a list of what a facet could be? We know currently « a facet can be the location of the stuff the book describes ». Or pretty much anything else? This is just a proxy for « the book has a vague relation with this topic ». Same problem with categorisation. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@TomT0m: "Location" is not what we are looking for here. We are not trying to say where the book is located, we are trying to indicate what it is about. The whole point of keywords is that they can be almost anything, and the mechanism of combined keyword search still works the same. If one wants to look up what kind of thing a keyword is, one can look up its P31 -- one doesn't need (or want) a separate property to indicate keywords relating specifically to location.
I am all in favour of adding main subject (P921) to books as well, if the data is there, and items exist for the relevant values. But I don't have a dataset of 225,000 "main subjects", what I have is a dataset of 225,000 keywords -- which I think it would be useful to be able to add. Jheald (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: I did not mean put « location » on the book item, I meant having an item « flora of GB » which would held the value. « one doesn't need (or want) a separate property to indicate keywords relating » this is exactly what « facet » is, it seems, « related to ». I guess it’s something we always avoided in Wikidata, putting « related to » which basically could be a superproperty of any property, conceptually, as the all point of property is to establish a relation. I’d actually be in favor of having a « keyword » property (specific to your dataset) that links our items to the used lexeme, this would be interesting, but I’ll always favor more semantic relationships, especially if the (raw) datas are available elsewhere, over importing raw but less wikidataish datas such as « keywords ». There is probably a service somewhere on the Internet where these documents can be queried by keyword, isn’t it?
Having a location as a keyword does not explain how the topic of the book is related to the location itself. Can be location of the intrigue, or a book entirely dedicated to the location itself, or a book about something that is located in this location, … author  TomT0m / talk page 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
If the book is "entirely dedicated" to the location, that should be indicated with main subject (P921). What keywords allow is a more exploratory search style: having searched eg for a keyword that is a location, one can then see what different other sorts of keywords are associated with that set of items -- eg "crime", "plants", "history", etc -- and make a choice at that point as to how to further narrow down the selection, rather than having to know and precisely specify the full subject at the start. It's a powerful (and quite simple) technique, which is precisely why so many information retrieval systems find keyword indexing a useful thing to include. Indeed, it's exactly what the Structured Data project is hoping to create for Commons -- for images we already have the depicts (P180) property which works like this. This equivalent for other kinds of creative works would be useful. Jheald (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
In a keyword system, the main topic should hopefully be reflected in the keyword :) so that does not exactly seem like a good argument as you plan to mass import the keywords without verifying if the keyword is actually a main topic. For images, the semantic is pretty clear, there is a representation of the item’s topic in the picture. But if your proposal is structured datas, then wikipedia categories are as well :) But it is not: it’s not, by current definition, it’s not a set of relationship beetween the topic of the book and the topic of the keywords according to a data model, it’s just a bag of keywords with no hint on the relations. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
A bag of keywords can actually be a useful model. In fact, as many information retrieval and library systems have found, it can actually be the most useful retrieval model -- more useful than old-school subject-string models. I'm not against adding detailed "main subjects", but stop getting in the way of this, which is (i) available, (ii) useful, (iii) very widespread across the board as keywords given for articles, papers, journals, books, etc, etc. It's data we ought to be able to reflect. Jheald (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: I don’t really like that tone. Please don’t make this personal or give orders. « It's data we ought to be able to reflect » As it’s an argument I already think I gave my opinion on, this information is already queryable on the web, I don’t really see how it’s really important to have it in Wikidata in the same exact form. Also you try to fit different indexation systems into one database, Wikidata, whereas those different database may have different policies on keywords and index the same documents. How to deal with this with only one property? If keywords are structured by an ontology as you seem to imply without really explaining clearly how, are they useful without importing that ontology as well? Also I don’t really understand the relation with faceted search, which rely on faceceted classification. We can already do faceted classification with metaclassification for example using instance of and subclass of, but faceted search means adapting the presentation of the search interface or the result to the topic of interest, for example what resonator does by displaying differently different kind of items. Or displaying a human which is both a scientist and an artist as a scientist is displayed or as an artist is displayed. But to do this, you need to have informations about the properties, not keywords! On does that mean that having a « scientist » facet for a book means you can search using a search interface which is specialized to find scientists?? for example a field the search for the university in which he graduated? Sorry but I’m deeply confused by your approach of the topic and your arguments. author  TomT0m / talk page 21:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mattsenate (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
KHammerstein (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mitar (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Merrilee (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Pharos (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DarTar (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
HLHJ (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Micru (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
JakobVoss (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Abecker (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Kopiersperre (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Dugan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hfordsa (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Runner1928 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete F (talk)
econterms (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sj (talk)
author  TomT0m / talk page
guillom (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
·addshore· talk to me! 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ainali (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Shani Evenstein (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Skim (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ocaasi (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Trilotat Trilotat (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData Jheald (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
LeadSongDog (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
RobLa-WMF (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Kosboot (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Aubrey (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Pintoch (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Raymond Ellis (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Crazy1880 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
T Arrow (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
GerardM (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC) With a particular interest of opening up sources about Botany and opening up any freely licensed publications.
Clifford Anderson (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Jsamwrites (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Samat (talk)
Ivanhercaz Plume pen w.png (Talk) 20:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 - talk page) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Mahdimoqri (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jaireeodell (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Egon Willighagen (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
RobinMelanson (talk) 2:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC) interested, in particular because of TRR project
Maxlath (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Dcflyer (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Trilotat Trilotat (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Salgo60 (talk)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData/More Jheald (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The topic of a book could be qualified. The subject could be plants (or ferns, trees ..) location Great Britain.. When this is done right, these would be the ingredients for a query. A similar pattern is used for "Catalog contains" where "human" combined with "position held" "position" is used extensively. So no, this would not work for me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @GerardM: I have 60,000 titles. I don't have the means to work out how all those keywords relate to each other, all I have is the dataset of the keywords without relationships given between them. The whole world uses keyword search and finds it useful. (cf category combines topics (P971)). The data is there for us, all nicely made ready on a plate. All we need to add, to be able to upload it and use it, is a property to link a title to a keyword. Jheald (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jheald: When I get the time, I need a few days to achieve this, I will be able to have all the books and authors of the BHL organised so that it becomes easy to link them through identifiers and insert both books and authors to Wikidata. When there is a book with keywords: "Great Britain" and "Ferns" then with some simple logic it is easy to understand those relations. So no, we do not need this. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • @GerardM: No, Gerard, please don't upload any more BHL titles for the time being. It is enough trying to digest the first 60,000, de-duplicate them, identify authors properly, work out which ones should be editions, periodicals, etc., put them into proper work -- edition relationships, etc, etc. Until we can get this first batch properly cleaned up, more items would not be helpful right now.
          And please also don't sabotage the possibility of straightforward keyword searching. Jheald (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
          • @Jheald: In a previous life I earned a considerable amount of money as a database programmer. When I have the database downloaded and properly organised on my computer, I will perform disambiguation using database tools. Many of the books of the BHL have been identified with LoC identifiers. The BHL content resides typically on the Internet Archive. I have my contacts there. I will prepare my database in a way that allows me to ingest new content from the BHL and know they are new. When I can get an export from Wikidata, I will be able to associate books with authors per the existing links. Now you can tell me nothing what I do at home. What I will do when I am done is explain the process I have performed.
As to this proposal apparently people are only allowed to agree with you. I do not. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@GerardM: Beware. I was looking at the LoC identifiers this afternoon. It's not that good a dataset. Of the 60,000 BHL 'title' items we currently have, about 28,000 have LoC identifiers, but many of them are wrong. So it's important to check them against the LoC itself, to make sure they are actually correct.
Secondly beware that not all books here have proper instance of (P31)s as books or as editions, nor do they necessarily have author (P50)s rather than author name string (P2093)s.
Thirdly, please make sure that any matching is rather better than your often-proclaimed 4% error rate. In my view, to be acceptable, an error rate ought to be nearer 0.01% -- ie no more than 10 mismatches or duplications in 100,000 entries. That's the standard a data upload should be trying to achieve.
Finally, I don't mind people disagreeing, or having vigorous discussions to find the best data modelling. What I do object to is people blocking whole approaches entirely to the extent of preventing whole data retrieval structures and delaying particular data uploads indefinitely. It may be that you want to be able to represent things differently, I'm not stopping you, but get out of the way of people who do want to be able to do things this way, and accurately represent data (in this case keyword information) in the way it is/was presented in the sources it was derived from. Jheald (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: You are telling me what to do and what not to do. Let me do my own research and let me consider what I think is reasonable. I do not subscribe to your notions. I do not agree with your approach because your argument is basically "it is the same shit, so who cares it is shit". Your notions about error rates are unrealistic it is not achieved in our data at all. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi, I'm a librarian, I leave out the last part of the discussion: I think that generic "keyword" could be good. However, it is very important to always add references to the thesaurus or ontology of origin of the terms. Nonoranonqui (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just creating complexity for nothing. Why is it a problem to say that the subject of the book is about botanic, Great Britain and Ireland ? The generation of a huge list of possible items if looking for all books having Great Britain as subject ? But this is the idea. Botanic of great Britain is part of Great Britain, so I don't understand why we have to consider it in a different way. The main problem with the proposal is the lack of rule specifying what should be in the defined by the subject property and what should be defined by the subject facet property. This is completely arbitrary so if people will do as he wants and at the end it would be impossible to propose a correct way to build query using two different sets of data. Snipre (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, as per Valentina. But: is there a way to use a more general 'keyword' property? Is tihs really specific to 'subjects' or is it about facets of any sort of work more generally? Sj (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion linked to from wikicite-discuss mailing list. [1] Jheald (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm generally in favor with this proposal and in agreement with the motivations, but I wonder how external data providers will feel about a controlled vocabulary being casually mapped to Wikidata items by contributors. Case in point: a bibliographic catalog maintains a vocabulary of keywords that are not yet mapped to Wikidata. Bibliographic data from this catalog is ingested into Wikidata and the community start manually adding subject facet statements matching keywords in the original record (or creating new topical items when needed). At some point, the organization behind the catalog introduces a formal mapping of their keywords to Wikidata items. How is this situation going to be handled in the case of conflicts and is this going to be a common scenario? Basically a community member and the original authority behind the data may disagree on the proper target of this property when interpreting the meaning of a keyword. I think the proposal should also clarify if the values should be restricted to those specified by the authority for this record (in which case provenance information should be made mandatory), or can be freely added by Wikidata contributors.--DarTar (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@DarTar: You may be more familiar than I am with organisations taking on to map their own controlled vocabularies to Wikidata themselves. I am sure that does happen, and in future I hope it will happen more. But in most cases (as has been the case with eg the matching of external thesauruses using Mix'n'match), I would think the values will have to be matched and added by the community (or more likely by one or two motivated individuals, perhaps using OpenRefine, and then batch-adding the relevant 'subject facet' statements), because that's how I think this will get done.
But you raise an important point, about transparency and traceability and contestability and improveability of the matching of the controlled vocabulary -- because (unlike matching a thesaurus to an external ID), the matching will not have a visible localised nexus in a single particular statement on a single particular item, but will be embodied implicitly in statements across the dataset. So how to retrieve and review and if necessary correct or improve such matches, after the event? Well, I'm a big fan of broad use of the stated as (P1932) qualifier. Using this one can attach the original string to a statement, as well as the Wikidata Q-number. If this is systematically used, then that gives us the traceability, and it becomes straightforward to produce a query or a Listeria page, matching the original controlled-vocabulary string to the Q-number (or Q-numbers plural) that have been used to represent it. If the data-source has a Wikidata project page (eg Wikidata:WikiProject BHL for the Biodiversity Heritage Library), the matching of various strings could then be discussed on the talk page, or perhaps just a note left to say that some of the matching had been updated, and was everybody okay with that. If there was a Listeria page, then that would give an audit-trail history of precisely what changes had been made over time.
P1932 can thus be used for subject keywords that are given as a string. If the subject keyword is given as a coded thesaurus identifier, then it may make more sense to give that as the qualifier instead (or as well). These qualifiers would be queryable in exactly the same way.
If keyword statements are coming from an external source, then yes the source should definitely be referenced. That should indeed be a mandatory thing. But there may be cases, for example, where there isn't any external source that has subject-indexed a particular set of works. Then editors should be free to add subject keywords from their own assessment; and it's probably also important to be able to add additional subject keywords, even when a set is available from an external source. How should this be indicated? One alternative would be the keywords simply not having a reference statement in such cases. A different approach, that might be preferable, could be to require a reference statement (subject to a constraint check), but allow people to give stated in (P248) = <no value>, or inferred from (P3452) = title (Q783521), or inferred from (P3452) = "Schlagwortkette". That would then clearly distinguish keywords that were editor-supplied, as against cases where the reference had simply been forgotten. Jheald (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure the current framing of the property is useful/ actionable as it stands. I agree that we need something besides main subject (P921), but that something and its use should be better defined (and delineated from P921) than what we currently have in this property proposal. Something like "keyword" also seems to be a more promising way of framing this than the very nebulous "facet". --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with Daniel that this proposal needs a little bit more thought before we proceed. It's especially important that we first think of some way to source the values so that people won't just start adding random values to items. Husky (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jheald: it seems people would be happier with "keyword" (or "subject keyword"?) as the English label of this property, is this ok with you? Regarding the discussion on sourcing above - how is this different from any other data in wikidata? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: Yes, absolutely, whatever people want to call it. Keyword is obviously the much more familiar term. The one reason I didn't go for it is a slight mantra that Wikidata items represent things, not words or terms; also "keyword" might suggest something language-dependent, whereas Wikidata's aspiration is to represent things in a way that is as language-independent as possible. But I am not going to get on any horse about what the property is called -- what it operationally does is what matters. As for sourcing: agree completely, how or why is this different to anything else that goes or doesn't go on Wikidata. Jheald (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Yea, it seems like a fine + useful use of this for anyone to add a keyword -- as long as we can distinguish a definitive map stated by an existing ontology, from the analysis of an individual editor. Community norms would govern what constraints if any there are on sourcing, a norm that might change by field or topic. Sj (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • +1 for using "keyword". As to whether that implies a word vs. a concept, I note that FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology (Q44955004) has "subject term" <subclass of> "concept" defined as "A concept that defines a term within the controlled vocabulary of a particular classification system ... used as an annotation to describe the subject, meaning or content of an entity." I'd say the property fabio:hasSubjectTerm is an exact match for what is proposed here (and perhaps "subject term" would be a good alias for "keyword" on that basis). Details of "subject term" in FaBiO here, p. 7. Perhaps we should change the description of this property to something like "term or concept used to contextualize this item in an external vocabulary, catalog, or datasource". I'd like to include catalog since publisher's catalogs frequently have a list of keywords for books they publish. - PKM (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jheald, PKM: I updated the label and description based on PKM's comment above. The "OR" is to indicate one of these should be label, the other an alias, as our property templates don't have a spot for aliases. Any further thoughts? @Valentina.Anitnelav, TomT0m, GerardM, Nonoranonqui, Snipre: @Sj, DarTar, Daniel Mietchen, Husky: please note "facet" is no longer part of label or description here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as amended, and happy with either “subject term” or “keyword” as the label. Very useful in my work for books used as references where the publisher may choose keywords like “costume” and “textiles” for cataloging options but where WD can support a more specific “main subject” like “medieval costume” or “costume of Spain”. - PKM (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
So the argument is to allow importing publisher keywords of low quality such as “costume” and “textiles” and keeping such broad keywords instead of grudually improving them with more specific terms such as “medieval costume” or “costume of Spain”?! -- JakobVoss (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in the amended form. Slight preference for 'subject term' because 'keyword' seems to suggest you can use arbitrary words, while 'term' feels a little bit more strict and defined. Husky (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi, sorry for joining in late. I recognize the problem, that the wording "main subject" does not always capture is, besides just suggesting there should be a "minor subject" too. To me, this proposal sounds a bit like the "minor subject", and I agree that could be a nice complementary property. But I would like to make people aware that we already have another granular mechanism to say what a paper is about: using that paper as "reference" for Statements. For example, if we have some paper as reference on the statement that the chemical compound acetic acid (Q47512) pKa (P1117) 4.74 (the reference paper actually being Small Scale Determination of the pKa Values for Organic Acids (Q23571464)), this also provides topics the paper is about, one perhaps a "main subject" (the compound) and the other (the concept of acid dissociation constant (Q325519) via the property) perhaps being a "subject facet"... --Egon Willighagen (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What's to stop someone adding all the keywords from the index of a book, to the item about that book? We all know that, if someone can do so, they will. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A new property this broad should be justified by more and independent use cases, in addition to the dump of keywords to be imported into Wikidata. The proposal only gives a single example and wrongly assumes a narrow use of main subject (P921). The existing property is also used as proposed with "main subject" as "one of the most relevant topical aspects or facets" instead of "the primary and only subject". -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This would be insufficiently structured. "Botany in Great Britain" could be a valid main subject, which could then be properly informative and filled with useful statements. A set of keywords tells us nothing. --Yair rand (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: A set of keywords is very helpful for retrieval -- so "it tells us nothing" is simply not true. The question here is whether we use main subject (P921) = "botany", "Great Britain" for such keywords (per User:JakobVoss above), or whether we use a different property and reserve P921 for subject-strings that are more encompassing. Jheald (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(de)evolution method[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionmethod used to evolve a Pokémon or to make it regress along its evolutionary line
RepresentsPokémon evolution (Q1040143)
Data typeItem
Template parameter"causaevolve" in it-wiki's Template:Infobox Pokémon Card (Q6509891)
DomainItems to be created
Example 1Bulbasaur (Q847571) → by level (16, result: Ivysaur (Q1636903))
Example 2Kadabra (Q2269206) → by trade (result: Alakazam (Q2069801))
Example 3Golbat (Q2345661) → by friendship (result: Crobat (Q2481075))
Example 4Growlithe (Q2312415) → by evolutionary stone (Fire Stone (Q27915858), result: Arcanine (Q2486279))
Example 5Azumarill (Q2705265) → by breeding (result: Marill (Q2705258))
Example 6Azumarill (Q2705265) → by breeding while holding an item (Sea Incense, result: Azurill (Q2739480))
Example 7Alakazam (Q2069801) → by megaevolution (Alakazite (Q56676293), result: Mega Alakazam (Q56676707)) for sure
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)


Airon90 Tris T7 TT me Tris T7 (talk) ...

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Pokémon WD:PKMN seems dead so I make this proposal here, without a earlier discussion. Some Pokémon species change, they evolve and since 2nd generation they can also recess by making an egg and sometimes the original Pokémon must own an item. There are also many ways to evolve a Pokémon: some by level, some by giving a stone, some in a particular (and unmappable singularly) way (e.g. by level and turning 3DS upside down, under the rain or when another Pokémon reach a level, there is room in the team and you have a Pokéball in the bag). This kind of information is important and must be mapped in Wikidata but as long as it need some subproperties to define the way to evolve, I think this needs a standalone property. The name of the property is temporary so if needed, change it. I'm going to show you how to map items: the property will be useful for both evolution and "deevolution" (I don't think there is a specific term for that kind of operation). The property must have one of these as statement, for each way of (de)evolving:

  • leveling up
  • leveling up with high level of friendship
  • leveling up while holding an item
  • leveling up while knowing a certain move
  • leveling up in a certain location
  • leveling up during a certain time of day
  • leveling up while holding an item during a certain time of day
  • leveling up while is a certain gender
  • leveling up in a certain game
  • leveling up with a certain Pokémon or Pokémon of a certain type in the party
  • leveling up while the Nintendo 3DS is upside-down
  • leveling up a Pokémon during certain types of weather.
  • trading the Pokémon
  • trading the Pokémon while holding an item
  • trading the Pokémon for specific Pokémon
  • using an evolutionary stone on it
  • by a particular method
  • breeding
  • breeding while holding an item

Items must be created yet. Then:

  • In case of leveling up, it needs numeric value (P1181) to define which is the lower level in order to trigger evolution
  • In case of item to be held, I honestly don't know if applies to part (P518) or item operated (P121) should work
  • In case of move/type of move to be known, the time of day, the gender, the game, the Pokémon/Pokémon type, the weather, the specific Pokémon to be traded and the evolutionary stone to be used, the property applies to part (P518) should work well.

Every statement should have also direction (P560) in order to define which Pokémon you get after the (de)evolution.

I think I wrote everything. During next week I will create items about evolution, if a sort of consensus is found --★ → Airon 90 09:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • How do you handle the fact that different Pokemon editions have different rules? ChristianKl❫ 13:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


This property could be used also to map mega evolution (Q16577590), as example 7, but I don't know how to link back, as I don't think it is possible to use the same property again. --★ → Airon 90 09:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know we have lots of Pokemon items, but this seems awfully specific for a property. Could you perhaps use instead followed by (P156) or a similar property, with appropriate qualifiers? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I already considered this option but don't think it is useful, because it would need a qualifier for the qualifier and as of now, Wikidata doesn't have such option: indeed, if I use followed by (P156) then I need a qualifier to define how the item (de)evolves into that specified Pokémon and then I need a qualifier for the qualifier to clarify level/item/Pokémon/...
See examples in order to understand how many data would this operation needs.
Other way to mapping these data are obviously welcome! --★ → Airon 90 06:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: IMHO, I also think that it doesn't have any sense to partially map the way of evolution. It is useless to just know that certain Pokémon evolve leveling it up or trading it with another Pokémon withour specifying the level which it evolve since or the Pokémon needed to be traded to trigger evolution. I think that either we allow mapping all data properly or it is useless partial work and it would be then better not to map at all these data :) --★ → Airon 90 06:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How do you handle the fact that different Pokemon editions have different rules? ChristianKl❫ 13:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Yes, just give correct priority to statements and applies to part (P518) will do the job ;) --★ → Airon 90 07:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Public presentation[edit]

   Ready Create
Descriptiontime of the first public presentation of a subject by the creator
Data typePoint in time
Domainconcept car (Q850270), type of manufactured good (Q22811462)
Example 1Renault EZ-Ultimo (Q56878821) → 2018-10-02
Example 2Samsung Galaxy S9 (Q50102300) → 2018-02-25
Example 3Bombardier Global 6500 (Q54370182) & Bombardier Global 5500 (Q57078862) → 2018-05-27
Example 4Bavaria R55 (Q57078990) → 2018-01-20
Sourcepress releases
See alsodate of official opening (P1619), publication date (P577), date of first performance (P1191)


date of official opening (P1619) and publication date (P577) are both for other types of works and also signify the actual beginning of public use, while this proposed property is intended to be used for the official announcement of the mere existence of the work. MB-one (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


significant event (P793) with qualifiers is currently used for this. But it only really makes sense to use it, if there's a separate wikidata item just for the presentation event, which isn't always the case. This property is intended to be more equivalent to first flight (P606), time of spacecraft launch (P619) or date of official opening (P1619). --MB-one (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a useful addition, however I think it could be even broader, such as an announcement date or introduction date for a new event, building (especially good for buildings that are being built and don't have a start or public opening date yet), or law (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Q42955478) -> 2017-11-02 . So I will Symbol support vote.svg Support it as "date of first public presentation/announcement" (announcement can also be in the alias). Further it should have a single value constraint as there can only be 1 first presentation. Germartin1 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course it could be open for more widely usa. --MB-one (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per ArthurPSmith. Use significant event (P793) with point in time (P585) qualifier, even if there's no dedicated item for the particular item's presentation event, as the property is intended for. --Yair rand (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith, Yair rand: The problem with significant event (P793) is that it can have as value the specific event or a generall occurence. Let's look at the new Pixel 3 (Q57179556), let's use significant event (P793), do we put as a value Google I/O (Q668984), Google I/O 2018 (doens't exist yet) or just presentation (Q604733) or announcement (Q567303) (announcement should have have series ordinal (P1545)=1 so it's clear that it's the first announcement and not just any), or even both. How do you query it??? Having a simple property "date of first public presentation/annoucement" will make it much easier Germartin1 (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm sure this has come up before in other contexts. Maybe we should split significant event (P793) into two, one to point to specific event items, and one to point to generic types of event? In any case I don't think we need special properties for each generic event type. The ones mentioned above were created early on and probably wouldn't be approved now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) @Germartin1: Hm, this is a good point, but it's applicable to essentially all the varied uses of P793. The presence of using specific instances of more general classes in P793 breaks use of qualifiers like P1545, and makes querying more difficult in general. Perhaps we should just eliminate use of such instances, and link the more specific item by a qualifier? I don't think working around it for one specific type by creating a new property is a good idea, but this is something that needs to be fixed somehow. --Yair rand (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nepalicoi (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the property will find enough usage to warrant a separate property. ChristianKl❫ 12:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Might be useful for copyright status (P6216) as some rules are based on first public display of an artwork (paintings etc). --Hannolans (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ah, we have already date of first performance (P1191). Is that not the same concept as this proposal? --Hannolans (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It is similar, but this one is more limited to the announcement/introduction, which predates date of first performance (P1191) which refers mostly to first time i.e a theater piece was performed or broadcasted but not announced. Germartin1 (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was thinking about proposing a property called "announcement time" before I saw this. I will now offer it as a potential alternative name. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

notable print[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionQid of a print (there may be more than one) that is a notable old representation of/from/for the work of art (mostly older out-of-print prints, but also paintings, archeological finds, sculptures, buildings, or other artefacts of religion, politics, or works of art) Notability can e.g. be of the forms: catalog representation for the artist or museum, Hollstein number (Dutch & Flemish prints), Bartsch number (old master prints), or some external id for the subject
Representsprint (Q11060274), Q22669429, etc
Data typeItem
Domainwork of printed art
Allowed valuesQid
Example 1View of Saxenburg estate with bleaching fields near Haarlem (Q21264555) -> Goldweigher's Field (Q21200482)
Example 2Dr. Brook Taylor's method of perspective made easy (Q55739221) -> Satire on False Perspective (Q7426243)
Example 3Conus marmoreus (Q1902297) -> The Shell (Q15874034)
Example 4Schilder-boeck (Q1157807) -> Portrait of Karel van Mander (Q58074274)
Example 5Two Children with a Cat (Q19326431) -> Two Children with a Cat (Q58074316)
Example 6Mona Lisa (Q12418) -> Mona Lisa (Q58087321)
Example 7Bird’s-eye View of Amsterdam (Q17558353) -> Bird's eye view of Amsterdam (Q52062987)
Example 8The Dream of Frederick III, Elector of Saxony (Q43981335) -> 1617 Reformation centenary broadsheet (Göttlicher Schrifftmessiger) (Q58299699)
Sourcethe documentation for the print should be on the print item
Planned usepart of an ongoing effort to include notable prints in Wikidata
Expected completenessnever complete


As a first step to including prints on Wikidata, I think we need some properties to help connect them to other artworks. Once we have a large group of notable prints we can make decisions about how to further construct items about them (e.g. do we really want to import all instances of popular prints?) Feel free to add more than the few examples here. Jane023 (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Vincent Steenberg
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts. Jane023 (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

To find the same connections you can make a query like (pseudo-SPARQL, equivalent for other languages etc.): ?subject wdt:P4969|wdt:P361|… ?print. ?print wdt:instance of (P31)/wdt:subclass of (P279)* print (Q11060274). In worst case the existence of this property would lead to those properties not being added. Probably we should make them more visible, dedicating a part of this awful guideline we have, Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure, to them. Maybe we could create a place on item pages where they can be expected by adjusting MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties. Would there still be any advantage of having this property proposed over them? --Marsupium (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Well the reason I am adding more example items is because in the literature there are lots of examples where the relationship is key, although the nature of this relationship can be very different. I am keeping the property unspecific for this reason. So to be clear, first the unspecific relationship can be easily made, and more refined relationships can be created later. It should be eassy to upload notable prints and indicate their strongest relationship to other artworks. Jane023 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
For example I mention Hollstein and Bartsch - I wanted to include Q numebrs and realized they don't exist on Wikidata (yet) except as people. Sigh. We need to make it easy to start and refine through iteration, not decide on some complicated hierarchy beforehand. Jane023 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jane023: Hm, I'm not sure if I get your point. Do you mean it is easier to remember a single property name? Otherwise do you have a concrete single example where using "notable print" instead of one of the existing properties is an advantage? --Marsupium (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The obvious answer is use this property for the earliest or most popular documented print, rather than any of the multiple iterations of prints. We have no way of indicating a hierarchy of importance, especially for prints of specific locations. Jane023 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Now I understand it, thank you, I had a broader WD:N-like definition in mind and also read that from your text. Also the template fields have confused me a bit. If I understand you right now, what is in the subject item/Represents field should go to allowed values. And the domain (the subject, the item where you want to put the property on) you plan is obviously much broader than “work of printed art”, that's the subject/values. I still think the scope the examples suggest is too broad. --Marsupium (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Jane023 Marsupium. I didn't know this property derivative work (P4969) (many thanks!) and the proposed property seems indeed a subclass of this concept. As Marsupium explain, using the nature of the item/derivative work leads to same idea and logical structure. If we want to limit redundant properties, it may be a better choice. The other things pointed by Jane is about the confusion with prints in wikidata, where works (FRBR) and items (FRBR) are mixed. This one for example met again last night, on which I contributed and which has become a documentary monster: Melencolia I (Q1362177). Happy halloween! With the progress of contribution on prints we come to the point where we need an item for the work and other items for the materializations. And here, I understand the interest of the property, to avoid the possibility to add several versions of the same work as derivative works. Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes exactly - and Melancholia is a good example. Think of this property a bit like notable work (P800) for people. I think that might help too. Jane023 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure that this is the right way round.
If we have an item for a print, (or for a "print state/print edition", cf map edition (Q56753859)), isn't the proper set of relations:
<print (item)> exemplar of (P1574) <print edition>,
<print edition> edition or translation of (P629) <print>,
<print> based on (P144) <painting> ?
That would seem more suited to what may well be a run of many-to-one relations.
What further does the proposed inversion, <painting> "notable print" <print>, give us?
And what would we mean by "notable"? What would make a print (or rather: print family, because that's really what we mean) notable or not ? Jheald (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see the examples in the proposal. The idea of one-way identification (i.e. the print comes after the object) is of course a great idea to do, but we don't have all of those prints for many objects. In the case of paintings, we sometimes know the painting follows the print for example, but we still want the "notable print" on the painting. For painting series of the same subject (and for older series it is not clear whether these were made by the same master) there are often also more than one print, and it is unclear which print should be associated with which painting. This enables a fuzzy link when the relationships you suggest are unknown. Jane023 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jane023: Thanks, Jane. To your first point, however, this proposed property is to be item-valued. So it wouldn't be usable anyway, unless we had an item for the print.
Regarding paintings after prints: it seems to me potentially extremely confusing if this property will sometimes indicate a print that the painting is based on, if almost always it will be indicating a print that is based on the painting. Better to use <painting> based on (P144) <print> for the first case.
As to the case when it is not clear which print should be associated with which painting, I would settle for <print> based on (P144) <painting series> in that case -- it seems the most honest way to express the relationship. Jheald (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I can't make prints any more or less confusing than they already are. I see no need to be scared of this property making things more confusing. It is in fact very useful to be able to link a painting to an associated popular print, especially when you can't determine what the print is based on at first glance. In the examples I gave, there are many 1-1 relationships, but of course there can be many-many relationships, where a series of paintings is based on a few prints, themselves based e.g. on various aspects of one popular altarpiece. We may not have many prints in Wikidata yet, but I hope this will change - see my comment under "motivation". I am not proposing to use this property when the relationship is not documented. The documentation should be in the print item (but it is sometimes included in information about objects sold on the art market). Jane023 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but I really think this isn't a right way. Unlike what the motivation suggests all the aforementioned properties are there and completely sufficient to describe the relationship itself ("notable" aside). In my eyes there is no need to have a dedicated property for prints as opposed to any other kind of works. The "notable" part indeed seems to make it different somehow, but it isn't well-defined as from what I understand of the proposal so far. If there should be some need to qualify the relation of something to a print of it, then a qualifier would probably be a better way, maybe a derivative work (P4969) and object has role (P3831) combination. --Marsupium (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, see my comment about notable work (P800). This property is to include the notable print(s) rather than just another way to link up any prints (which of course can be very many over the centuries for multiple editions, if we ever import bibliographic metadata). I would also be happy btw if that property was expanded to be able to be used on non-human items. Jane023 (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Marsupium last comment. The proposed property is overly specific and constrains the type of the object (to Print) but that is an inherent attribute of the object, it should not be carried by the prop. (By analogy, Mother is a worse prop than Parent because what happens if you link Mother to a male?). Marsupium and Jheald mention 4 existing props; Jane do you really want to create a 5th one and increase the confusion? What we need is more usage guidelines; and thank you for the excellent examples that move us significantly towards that. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for liking my examples! I chose them precisely because I want to show the relationship of the item to a print. I find it interesting that you feel I am being specific, because this property is just one of many properties I would like to propose for prints, and this is the least specific of them. Your point that the properties derivative work (P4969), part of (P361), depicted by (P1299), published in (P1433) can be used instead is not true. None of these expect the object to be a print, which is the whole point. Secondly, the study of prints is extremely complex and the examples chosen are explicitly unsuited for derivative work (P4969), which would be very convenient indeed if all prints were well documented as to their origins. I think you will find that some engravers are considered artists in their own right, and many paintings are based on concepts known from "iconic prints" known for their popularity in politics, religion or art. So the same problem holds for depicted by (P1299) in the "chicken-and-egg" cases. The shell case is interesting because it is an exemplar of a period when shell collecting was at its peak. Lastly, whether something is part of a larger work or published in a work is useful, but has no indication in terms of being the "notable iconic image" part of the work. Jane023 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

quotation or excerpt[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionquotation or excerpt from this work
Data typeMonolingual text
Domaincreative work (Q17537576)
Example 1I've Been to the Mountaintop (Q5967210) → [the four quotes used in the English Wikipedia article, split roughly every 400 characters]
Example 2[virtually any page in q:Category:Productions]
Example 3MISSING


We have first line (P1922) and last line (P3132), but it's not possible to add quotes for anything else (in particular things that are only one line long). Qualifiers like page(s) (P304) and time index (P4895) would probably be used for indicating the point within the work that the quotation begins. In addition to use for statements, this would be useful as a qualifier for statements relating between works, like work sampled (P5707). Jc86035 (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems to me like this might be better handled by using/creating a Wikiquote entry for the quote you want, then linking to that item. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: Quotes on Wikiquote don't get their own pages, as far as I'm aware – they're usually associated with the person or work that originated them. Jc86035 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Have you thought about the copyright implications? How do you plan to prevent such problems from arising? ChristianKl❫ 14:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: The 400-character limit for strings should suffice for now; perhaps a complex constraint would be required for items with more than about 4 statements for this property, and statements with more than one qualifier for this property. If it's fine for Wikisource to host massive amounts of copyrighted quotes from TV shows and the like, the implication is that there's nothing wrong with the same thing being done here (and CC-0 probably wouldn't make a difference to that here). Jc86035 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    It is fine for Wikiquote only because that project allows non-free content that is used under fair use (see here, though that is not official policy). I do not believe Wikidata is ready to do so itself. Having said that, I am still supporting this proposal below, as I don't believe the fact that someone could use a given field to add copyrighted information is a reason not to have the property at all. There are plenty of valid use cases for public domain works, so I think the solution should be policing Wikidata's content for policy violations, not preventing this property. Also, I would note the existence of quote (P1683), which already allows quotations on Wikidata (but that property is specifically for use in references). Dominic (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, though I think this raises other issues. How should we distinguish between a true excerpt and when a full work is short enough to be included in its entirety (e.g. a short poem, short speech, etc.). These are conceptually different, and we would not want to misrepresent a full work as incomplete. For example, I just checked and the entire Gettysburg Address can fit in a single statement (the character limit is now 1500, not 400). And I would note that we already have an inscription (P1684) property, which is essentially a full-text quotation of a very specific type of work. I also think enabling quotations from works implies we should have an equivalent, but separate, property for adding quotations of people or things, since the data is usually given in that context as well. I think there should be three separate properties in total: "excerpt (of work)," "quotation (of person)," "full text/transcript". Dominic (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Including a short poem in its entirety will violate copyright. You can't simply copy a poem just because it's short without violating existing copyright. ChristianKl❫ 17:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: We already have LilyPond notation (P5482), which could easily be used to violate copyright laws. That it would be possible doesn't mean the solution is to not have the property. Jc86035 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This should wait for structured Wikiquote. --Yair rand (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: Why? Lexemes didn't wait for structured Wiktionary. A structured Wikiquote would, in any case, probably require much more software development for Wikiquote than for Wikidata, seeing as all that's required on the Wikidata end is one property and imports, and we could make the property now; whereas structured Wikiquote would require a lot of interface changes to avoid massively disrupting Wikiquote contributors' workflows. Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

organizational unit[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptiondepartment, branch, office, or other type of organizational unit responsible for a collection's or object's care, interpretation, conservation, reference, description, etc.
Data typeItem
Domaininstances of collection (Q2668072) or item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) and their subclasses
Example 1Moving Images Documenting the Life and Culture of North American Indians (Q59920342)National Archives at College Park - Motion Pictures (Q59661039)
Example 2Minutes of the General Council of the Menominee Indian Tribe (Q59920343)National Archives at Washington, DC - Textual Reference (Q59661072)
Example 3Maps of Indian Reservations Related to Irrigation (Q59920345)National Archives at College Park - Cartographic (Q59661038)


I am starting this proposal because of a gap we have in our ability to describe cultural collections. I first asked a question about this at Property talk:P195#Museum objects' organizational unit?, but received no response. Currently, we can only describe a collection in terms of (1) the institution two which it belongs (collection (P195)) and (2) the physical location, usually building (location (P276)). What this misses is the organizational unit to which it belongs. That is, within many large institutions, the organization is broken into divisions based on topic area, time period, type of materials, and so on—and objects or collections often list the department responsible for them in their metadata. This concept is distinct from the location, because it is about organizational structure.

For a concrete example, the Rosetta Stone (Q48584) falls under the Ancient Egypt and Sudan Department in the British Museum—simply listing the institution and the location fails to capture that data, which we could add if we make items for the organizational units such as that museum department. I am using examples from NARA above, as that is the collection I am actually working on.

Though it is widespread, there is no standard name for this concept. At NARA, we call it the "reference unit". I can also imagine it being referred to as a "department", "branch", "division", or something else along those lines. Also, sometimes this might be the institution itself, if there are no divisions within it. I proposed "organizational unit" because that seems broadly descriptive, but I am open to alternative suggestions. Dominic (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


  • @Dominic: Is this different to maintained by (P126), if something is desired in addition to collection (P195) (which can be applied hierarchically) ? Jheald (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jheald: I see this property as somewhat different from that one's scope, since it is about the organizational subdivision with direct responsibility, whereas that one could reasonably always take the organization itself as value. I also think the concept of "maintained by" ("keeping the subject in functioning order"), is a little different, since this is more about a set of physical or intellectual responsibilities related to a collection. In my Rosetta Stone example, the Ancient Egypt and Sudan Department at the British Museum doesn't "maintain" the object, but they do things like preserve, catalog, and describe it. And, more to the point, they are listed in a "Department" field in the catalog metadata, so clearly that is relevant in some way. There is clearly a concept here that needs modeling, and I think it makes sense as something with scope limited to cultural heritage collections, though I am struggling a bit in defining it succinctly. Dominic (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Dominic: According to its aliases maintained by (P126) is also intended to cover "custodian", and in French "conservé par", so (like most property labels) the name should be read broadly.
Alternatively, if the collection is divided up hierarchically, with different organisational units responsible for different bits of it, a more 'Wikidata' way of representing that might be to create new sub-collection items for the different parts of the collection - eg "British Museum Ancient Egypt & Sudan collection".
But the present name is not good. Something to indicate what it is that the property is saying connects the item to the value is needed. "Responsible organisational subunit" might be better -- that could at least suggest the property is about the idea of having responsibility for things. Jheald (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at the properties we currently have on items that are statement-values of collection (P195) statements (excluding human beings), it seems that at present we have 37 with maintained by (P126) statements, and 87 with operator (P137) statements. May be worth looking into these.
Current uses of maintained by (P126):; current uses of operator (P137):
Not exactly the uses you're looking for, but not necessarily incompatible with it, especially at the level a step up from the object level. Jheald (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose label is too vague, it's not clear how this would differentiate from other properties. If you just need a property for "NARA reference units", please call it "NARA reference unit". --- Jura 06:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about business division (P199) or subsidiary (P355)?--Jklamo (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With current name and description it would likely be used outside of what it's intended for. ChristianKl❫ 12:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


   Under discussion
DescriptionArticle from NicoNicoPedia.
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainwikidata item
Allowed valuesArbitrary unicode string
Allowed unitsN/A
Example 1Japanese New Year (Q701398)お正月
Example 2Bloom Into You (Q22932761) → やがて君になる
Example 3Ai Kayano (Q1187078) → 茅野愛衣
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useTBD
Number of IDs in source439863
Formatter URL$1
Robot and gadget jobsCould be attempted to match Niconicopedia article name with Japanese Wikipedia article names
See alsoP5737


Niconicopedia is an Japanese online encyclopedia that document information and meme on Japanese internet and also for various different hobby. Sometimes that might have more information than relevant Wikipedia articles that it might be a good idea to connect them together. C933103 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the form it has at the moment where the name isn't like similar names of online encyclopedia properties and the description tells me little about what the encyclopedia is about. ChristianKl❫ 14:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • NicoNicoPedia's system is similar as wiki. Any paying member can edit articles. Each article has own numeric id, so you also can link an article such as . 本日晴天 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikia Article URL 2[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionWikia Article URL
Data typeURL
Domainfictional character (Q95074), television series episode (Q21191270)… things that have articles in wikia
Allowed values^https?:\/\/(?:[^@\n]+@)?([^:\/\n?]+)\.(wikia|fandom)\.com\/wiki\/.+ (any subdomain of or
Example 1
Kermit the Frog (Q1107971)
Example 2
Professor Moriarty (Q283111)
Example 3
Mortynight Run (Q22807440)
SourceP973 (with any subdomain of or
Planned usea lot of items use already use described at URL (P973) to point to wikia pages. these could be automatically replaced
Number of IDs in source2283 yet (see query)
See alsoFandom wiki ID (P4073), Fandom Wikia article ID (P6262)


Following the withdrawal of Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikia Article URL and the closure of the proposal by a property creator as "withdrawn". Here is a new proposal. Still think this is preferable over Fandom Wikia article ID (P6262), @Cwf97: if you are still interested. --- Jura 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why is this better than Fandom Wikia article ID (P6262)? NMaia (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • P6262 is a redirect to a wiki page title, not a generally unique external identifier for a concept. Users other than Wikia themselves might not even be able to resolve the address correctly. --- Jura 11:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Cwf97, NMaia: Given the lack of interest, I'd withdraw this. What do you think? --- Jura 03:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

has alt-text[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionproperty that indicates subject uses Q60844786, either regularly for serial works, or at all for one-time works
Representsalt text (Q60844786)
Data typeMonolingual text
Template parameternone that I (Arlo) could find; w:en:template:infobox comic strip has an `alt` but it is for use in the context of a visual representation of a strip within a wikipedia article (for example a logo or sample strip).
Domainitems, specifically comic related items (those that would also use properties like Special:WhatLinksHere/Q28902389)
Allowed valuesfree text
Allowed unitsnot applicable
Example 1Time (Q14566918) → The end.
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useAdd to public domain webcomic entries
Number of IDs in sourcenot applicable
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobshuman-dominated


I want Wikidata to have basic descriptive capability for webcomics, a joy of mine. Arlo Barnes (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This would definitely be useful for xkcd! Are there other webcomics or related online materials that would need this though? I think I might Symbol support vote.svg Support this just for use with xkcd, but would be more comfortable with other examples too. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the description and subject item seem too vague. More samples are needed to understand the intended scope if it isn't meant for statements that could primarily be on Commons (statements on M-entities). --- Jura 13:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We're not in the business of documenting all individual strips. Circeus (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Amis du Louvre ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an artwork on the website of the Société des amis du Louvre
RepresentsSociété des amis du Louvre (Q3488087)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainwork of art (Q838948)
Allowed values[a-z]+(-[a-z]+)?
Example 1Crucifix (Q3698240)croix-peinte-du-maitre-san-francesco
Example 2Nymph with a Scorpion (Q17451496)nymphe-au-scorpion
Example 3The Turkish Bath (Q2027662)bain-turc
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useTemplate:Arts links (Q45312151)
Formatter URL$1
CountryFrance (Q142)
See alsoAtlas ID (P1212)


This new Wikidata property to identify artworks (Q44847669) would further improve our coverage of the Collections of the Louvre (Q21157456). Thierry Caro (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Vincent Steenberg
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC) VIGNERON
Ash Crow
Thierry Caro
Nomen ad hoc
Marianne Casamance
Le Passant
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thierry Caro: Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment is a specific property really appropriate? Maybe I'm missing somthing but it seems there is only a few artwork (something around 200?) and it doesn't seem to be a real database, more just the subpages of a website. Why not just use described at URL (P973)? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It has become usual for us to have such properties, with URL parts used as IDs. As for the number of entries, it is not the highest we have but there are also, on the contrary, properties with far less content. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Number given here is 200 IDs, already existing links to the resource haven't been mentioned, only one hit in Special:LinkSearch/ Thus costs of this property are higher than use I think. --Marsupium (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Downloads page[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionA URL describing where this item can be obtained.
Data typeURL
Domainsoftware (Q7397)
Example 1Exchanger XML Editor (Q61939444)
Example 2Mozilla Firefox (Q698)
Example 3Chalk (Q61687348)
Planned useI would like this property to be added to all software items on Wikidata.
See alsodownload link (P4945)


Wikidata includes many software items. Wikidata can currently include a download link (P4945) for each software version identifier (P348). However, it is difficult to include download links for every published version and keep this list updated. Furthermore, various computer architectures may require different downloads. Thus, for a user seeking to obtain the latest version of software suitable for their architecture, they would be wiser to ignore the included download link (P4945) and go to the official website (P856). By including a link to a downloads page on Wikidata, allow the user to skip the step of searching the home page for a downloads link. Most software has a dedicated downloads webpage, although on some occasions this may be the same as the official website (P856). Daask (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The current property is enough and I do not think we need a new one David (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per David. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also think this is not needed, but I think it would be useful to have a Property like "source code link" that links directly to the source code of the software. In most cases this would be a link to GitHub or an other git platform. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: How would this be different from source code repository (P1324)? Mahir256 (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I just searched for it with the wrong words. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Mahir256 (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Pigsonthewing, GPSLeo, Mahir256: I am somewhat bewildered by the opposition, given that no one has addressed any of the points I mentioned in my motivation. Perhaps it would inspire more thoughtful dialogue if I re-formatted my rationale as a list:
    1. Wikidata software version identifier (P348) information is not consistently up-to-date, and therefore not reliable or usable for those seeking to download a piece of software.
    2. Different computer architectures sometimes require different downloads. While a software version identifier (P348) can have multiple download link (P4945) qualifiers, there is no way to describe which software version identifier (P348) is which, except by encoding this information in the URL. In other words, since software version identifier (P348) is a qualifier, it cannot have qualifiers of its own.
    3. This is one of the most vital and useful pieces of information about a software application, which is frequently searched for by users.
    4. There is no current property which is suitable to provide the same information. download link (P4945) is a qualifier, not a property.
    Daask (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Daask: Any problem with the existing property can be solved so there is no justification for creating a new one David (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: May I ask how you think the problem can be solved? I made a proposal for the best solution I could think of, but it sounds like you have another idea I may not have considered. Daask (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @Daask:I do not have a specific idea but there is definitely a solution to any problem with the existing property David (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]

   Ready Create is a database with inscribed tablet over a dead person found in churches. In Wikidata we will connect this property to a person/ or family with a location of a church
Representsepitaph (Q1772)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Claes Depken (Q5620546)page=begravningsvapen&subj=B0014
Example 2Carl Ulrik Torstenson (Q26239971)page=begravningsvapen&subj=B0274
Example 3James Spens (Q647928)page=begravningsvapen&subj=B0276
Example 4Q9267192page=begravningsvapen&subj=B0364
Example 5Gustaf Adolf von Siegroth (Q6175557)?page=epitafier&subj=E0016
Planned usepopulate
Number of IDs in source800
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1


Its a perfect match with Wikidata were we have most of the Swedish churches and also many of the persons mentioned in this database. The database is well managed and Wikidata can add a lot of value to that database. Task T217575 Salgo60 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Radio Courtoisie program ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a program on Radio Courtoisie’s website
RepresentsRadio Courtoisie (Q2209224)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Le Monde de la philosophie (Q62843916)libres-propos/le-monde-de-la-philosophie
Example 2Langue française, joyau de notre patrimoine (Q62908530)emissions-anciennes/langue-francaise-joyau-de-notre-patrimoine
Example 3Parole et Pensée (Q62843482)libres-propos/parole-et-pensee
Number of IDs in source133
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • David you know that Radio Courtoisie is a french far-right radio which hate arab people, isn'it? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Not the "radio" itself (which includes strictly non-political and cultural programs—see given examples), but it is true that some hosts are highly controversial. However there's no harm about it according to me, given that we already have properties for controversial websites such as Unz Review author ID (P2734) (see about this [2]). 10:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How many "number of ids"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    133, if I didn't miscount. 09:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why described at URL (P973) is not sufficent? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Because this property would provide us identifiers and enable us to enhance coverage of the topic. Furthermore, the given links don't really "describe" the programs. Hence described at URL (P973) wouldn't suit IMHO. 09:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The proposer already created several items using official website (P856) and I can't see any added benefit in creating a dedicated property, especially for so few items (and indeed there was no motivation provided initially) --Nono314 (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


   Under discussion
Descriptionpainter, creator of animation films
Representsanimator (Q266569)
Data typeItem
Template parameterМультипликаторы в ru:Шаблон:Мультфильм -->
Allowed valuesQ5
Example 1MISSING
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING


One of staff roles for animation films. Infovarius (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Alvin ID[edit]

   Ready Create
DescriptionPlatform for digital collections and digitized cultural heritage in Uppsala about. It is managed by Uppsala university library
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed unitsQ5 but could also be ships etc...
Example 1Johan Georg Breuer (Q16801941) → [ 4667
Example 2Abraham Cronström (Q5613604)1838
Example 3Anders Spole (Q2846475)3790
Example 4August Strindberg (Q7724)8258
Planned usepopulate as much as possible
Number of IDs in sourceits +3500 different archives with about +195826 items and +59446 persons
Expected completeness99%
Formatter URL$1


Its a database with very good quality and of interest for Wikidata/Wikipedia (twitter @AlvinPortal)Salgo60 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Tubezlob VIGNERON Jane023 Pigsonthewing Ambrosiani Spinster Wittylama Fuzheado Emijrp Daniel Mietchen Marsupium Martingggg Anne-LaureM Beat Estermann Manu1400 Mauricio V. Genta Patafisik MartinPoulter Tris T7 BeatrixBelibaste Clifflandis Mrtngrsbch

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Museums

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support external identifier John Samuel (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a good and useful source. About Alvin VisbyStar (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

review of[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionThis property connects a review of a work to the work that the review is a review of
Representsreview (Q265158)
Data typeItem
Domainarticle (Q191067)
Allowed valueswork (Q386724)
Example 1The Belfast Monthly (1810) on Aikin’s Epistles on Women (Q63684439)Epistles on Women (1810 edition) (Q63685444)
Example 2Der Kaiser ging ... (Q19157726)Der Kaiser ging, die Generäle blieben (Q63285462)
Example 3Findings: the material culture of needlework and sewing. By Mary C Beaudry. 241mm. Pp xi + 320, 46 b&w ills. London: Yale University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-300110-93-7. £35 (hdbk) (Q59178709)Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing (Q63320115)
Example 4Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd. By Janet Arnold. 320 × 250mm. Pp. xvi + 376, 481 ills. (incl. 16 in col.). Leeds: W. S. Maney and Son, 1988. ISBN 0-901286-20-6. £75·00 (Q59177974)Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd (Q61461736)
Example 5The Tudor Tailor: Reconstructing Sixteenth Century Dress The King's Servants: Men's Dress at the Accession of Henry VIII (Q58525129)The Tudor Tailor (Q59342490), The King's Servants (Q59342630)
Planned useI want to identify the works associated with reviews in order to view how the reviews portrayed the authors to support the "Women Writers in Review" project of Northeastern University. (
See alsomain subject (P921), rating (P4271), review score (P444), ranking (P1352)


Women Writers in Review is a collection of 18th- and 19th-century reviews, publication notices, literary histories, and other texts responding to works by early English-language women writers. It is published by the Northeastern University Women Writers Project with support from the Digital Scholarship Group at Northeastern University Libraries, and grant funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities. A digitized evaluation of the reception of these works will enrich the understanding of the data, not just for this collections, but other scholarly collections from around the world as well.. Rosiestep (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


An example would be: review score (P444) of "Review of A View of Religions" (Q????????) which is a review of "A View of Religions" (Q38227783). What this is meant to do is capture the relationship of the review score (e.g. a rating) of --> the periodical review of --> a literary work. The "review score" or any other associated property we listed would belong with the review and not the work it reviews.
Some facts and definitions regarding Women Writers in Review project:
There are 74 authors, who have published 198 works, which were reviewed by 112 different periodicals.
These reviews include: literary reviews, theatrical reviews, and so forth.
Review scores (ratings) include: Mixed, Very negative, Somewhat negative, Very positive, Somewhat positive, and Neutral or no evaluation.
Reviews are defined as: TEI-encoded transcriptions of individual texts, including data about their sources, and pointers to any referenced works or authors
Sources are defined as: or the historical periodicals/books/etc. in which the reviews were originally published
Works (shorthand for “referenced works”), or the distinct textual creations which are referenced in the reviews

@Rosiestep:, if these work for you, can you update the examples in your proposal? - PKM (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

if User:Rosiestep is happy for this to be what her proposal becomes -- I think it is not what she originally had in mind. @PKM: It would seem that we are clearly identifying this as a proposal for book (film, music, art, etc) reviews, rather than for a review article (Q7318358) or any other kind of review. The specificity may well be a good thing. Are we relaxed that main subject (P921) works for the rest? Jheald (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See, that's exactly what I meant. If the intention was for book reviews (as hinted by the properties mentioned in the proposal), I'm fine with it, but it's hard to tell because of a lack of examples in the proposals (I have tagged multiple book reviews, I could fetch some!) and what amounts to overdescribed purpose. If the property is actually intended for review article (Q7318358) rather than book review (Q637866) (we don't seem to have a "movie review" item...), then this proposal is exactly what main subject (P921) is meant to handle. Circeus (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello all. Thanks for your feedback and sorry for making things confusing. I am traveling but will be able to circle back to this tonight. Wskent (talkcontribslogs), if you are in Boston by tonight, let's connect, ok? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Clarify Planned Use: model the review score (P444) of literary criticism (Q58854) of pre-XX-c women's written work (Q47461344). I'd appreciate any advice on how to proceed or re-write this proposal. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Okay, I think what you're talking about above is not a property proposal. A property proposal, in the sense of property proposal pages like this one, is quite a specific thing: namely a proposal for a new "verb" to go into statements of the form <subject> <verb> <object> , to allow one to say something about a particular Wikidata item (the subject).
The discussion you seem to be wanting is much broader, namely how to model "Women Writers in Review" more generally, and the texts contained within it.
I propose first to re-write the proposal above to be just about the verb "is a review of", since that is the kind of specific relation that these proposal pages are for, and seems to have attracted quite a lot of support above. --YesY Done.
Then I propose to create an item for "Women Writers in Review", and some model items for some of the review articles there that you've cited above, that will act as a basis that we can then consider and critique to see whether they could be expressed better. YesY Created: Women Writers in Review (Q63683777)
We might also consider creating a WikiProject page for "Women Writers in Review", as a central place to present summary statistics, and for discussion about data modelling and progress.
I hope that would seem agreeable to you. Best regards, Jheald (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I have created some items: The Belfast Monthly (1810) on Aikin’s Epistles on Women (Q63684439), The Belfast Monthly Magazine (Q63684444), Epistles on Women (1810 edition) (Q63685444), Epistles on Women (Q63685268). They're not perfect, but they're sufficiently developed they can give us a solid enough basis for discussing how best to represent such sorts of items, relationships between them, and different aspects of the Women Writers in Review collection.
If the item for every book review includes the statement collection (P195) = Women Writers in Review (Q63683777), then it will be easy enough to write queries to analyse any collective aspects of the items in the collections; and the works they are reviews of; and those works' authors -- once items are created for each of the constituents of those sets of things. Jheald (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The part of your project that I am least sure how to model is that corresponding to review score (P444) -- how highly the work was rated by the review.
Conventionally this is a property that sits on the item for the work, see eg Q2377#P444: so one way to represent the WWiR assessment of the review might be:
Epistles on Women (1810 edition) (Q63685444) review score (P444) "5/5"
with qualifiers:
review score by (P447) = The Belfast Monthly Magazine (Q63684444)
publication date (P577) = 1810
sourcing circumstances (P1480) = <WWiR assessment>
(better than determination method (P459) ?)
statement is subject of (P805) = The Belfast Monthly (1810) on Aikin’s Epistles on Women (Q63684439)
and referenced by
reference URL (P854) =
retrieved (P813) = 10 May 2019
One thing that I have a bit of unease about is that P444 requires a numerical score -- but the original review didn't give a numerical score. An assessment of the review is made by WWiR, but that's not actually numerical either -- the different values for reception there [3] are in fact "very negative", "somewhat negative", "mixed", "somewhat positive", and "very positive", plus "neutral or no evaluation". If anything, this is more like a scale of -2 to +2, if one should represent it numerically at all. Is it fair and/or appropriate to represent it as a score from 1 to 5 ? I am not sure, even if a P1480 qualifier arguably gives some cover.
But I do like the way that this would group all the review scores together under the reviewed item. In fact under this approach you wouldn't even need to create items like The Belfast Monthly (1810) on Aikin’s Epistles on Women (Q63684439) unless you particularly wanted to, or unless there was particular additional information about the review that you wanted a place to record. And you could use the P1480 tag to gather together reviews from the WWiR project for query purposes.
Any thoughts from people on this modelling? Jheald (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Neither determination method (P459) nor sourcing circumstances (P1480) have any business being there. What you really wants (as far as I can tell) is reference has role (P6184) book review (Q637866). Circeus (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: It seems that, fundamentally, User:Rosiestep is interested in recording the positivity or negativity of the review, as assessed by the WWiR project. It does seem to me that review score (P444) is our best bet for doing that. But as the original 1810 review didn't come with the helpful statement "Blockbuster -- don't miss: 5* ", it seems to me we do need to qualify any such 5/5 rating with something to point to where that number has come from, what it may mean, and how it has been assessed -- i.e. to link it to an item standing for the WWiR assessment model and methodology. IMO determination method (P459) would be legitimate, because the WWiR methodology is how the 5/5 has been arrived at. But I slightly prefer sourcing circumstances (P1480) as indicating this statement has particular issues associated with it.
This way also has the advantage that one can see how positive or negative all the reviews for a work were, all at a glance in a single place. (And it transfers easily to infoboxes, which is probably why we instituted this approach in the first place.
It's a fair point that it's reductive and uncultured to try to reduce what may be a subtle and engaged discussion of the work to a single numerical score. But it's useful, and that's effectively what WWiR have done, so I don't see any reason not to reflect it here. It's equally true that there will be reviews that we don't have an external assessment of positivity for; and even in the WWiR corpus there are items like notices of works, that give no effective view of them. In such cases we could still use the above data model, even with no numerical score, by setting review score (P444) = somevalue or P444 = novalue and using the same qualifiers. Alternatively, it has been suggested in the discussion at WT:BOOKS to use described by source (P1343) = the magazine that carried the article, with statement is subject of (P805) pointing to an item for the review itself, to which could be added object has role (P3831) = book review (Q637866) along the lines of what you suggest. Jheald (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
My bad. I thought you were discussing actual review scores such as those documented by Template:Video game reviews (Q6354287) (as opposed to stuff like Metacritic (Q150248)'s metascore). Circeus (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Swedish Royal Theater Archive[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptiona database of roles, persons and plays performed at the Swedish Royal theater Royal Dramatic Theatre (Q1140265)
RepresentsRoyal Dramatic Theatre (Q1140265)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterthere is a template that can be used see sv:Mall:Dramaten used on +700 pages
Example 1Margaretha Krook (Q1799576)Person/3611
Example 2Betsey Trotwood (Q3639127)?roleName=Bettsy+Trotwood
Example 3David Copperfield (Q189811)Play/598/
Planned usepopulate all items
Number of IDs in sourcerough estimate 10000
Expected completeness100%
Formatter URL$1


Task T222515 we have already connected some swedish properties related to music/theater/movie

Swedish Royal Theater Archive will be another step in introducing linked data for museums/theaters related to music and theater. In the long run I hope they will be candidates for implementing their own instances of Wikibase - Salgo60 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support can be useful to see which fictional characters are played and which theater plays are set up over time (also between theaters / countries). VisbyStar (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is great however I think the second example should be invalid. ?category=roles&query=Bettsy+Trotwood is clearly no identifier, nor does its result represent the same thing as the Wikidata item. Abbe98 (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Abbe98: agree. I dont see that Dramaten gives us a query a problem (if it is stable) more who should have what data. I think we need to start having a dialogue inside Wikidata and with external parties like Dramaten
  • Should wikidata has everything? - my answer No
    • Is it ok to use mapping relation (Q60817979) and a qualifier close match/narrow match- I see no problem, but the question is more why do we add them. When LOD get more mature we will meet this problem all the time. I can see it with churches in Sweden that domain experts like Swedish National Heritage Board (Q631844) always will have a more "mature" model that is too complex for Wikipedia
  • Should Wikidata has the persons and major plays and we tell the domain experts to join our echo system setting up a Wikibase (Q16354758) - see my presentation last week(GITHUB) were I hope this is the way forward but today I feel its not realistic as its a mismatch between complexity of the concept/Wikibase product maturity/#LOD skills at domain experts
- Salgo60 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Salgo60: your comment is not related to my concern. The identifiers look fine to me but the query is defiantly not stable and will break sooner or later. It would in almost all cases just be the Wikidata label URL encoded, if applications would like to create such links they could do it on the fly. Linking to unstable query links is the opposite of Linked Open Data. Abbe98 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Abbe98: Looks like Betsey Trotwood (Q3639127)?roleName=Bettsy+Trotwood will work as long as two plays dont have identical names :-) Would be better if we asked them to convert Strings to Things as they have for actors in a play. I guess step one is adding actors and plays so this will be next phase - Salgo60 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Plays in Rollboken are theatre productions, not plays/scripts. I.e. there are three David Copperfields (1941, 1948 & 1953) with their own IDs (see, none of which are identical to (David Copperfield the literary work) Ambrosiani (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ambrosiani: Yes and I think they should maybe be in a local en:Wikibase installation at Musikverket?!?!? I guess when connecting a general knowledge graph as Wikidata with a specialist "domain" we have to define "responsibilities" who is caring about what. A good pattern would be if we could get Musikverket to define User stories so that we better understand what added value Wikidata can add. I recommend the Future learn training about how to work together in Open networks link - Salgo60 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure, but until then I think it's only the /Person/ID endpoint that can be used by wikidata items. Ambrosiani (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

copyright clarification[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionQualifier of copyright status (P6216) to provide extra details explaining .
Data typeMultilingual text (not available yet)
DomainQualifier of copyright status (P6216)
Allowed valuesAny descriptive text
Example 1Girl washing clothes (Q60581387) → "Based on Pieter de Hooch's date of death in 1684" (especially for works with multiple authors it would be useful to mention which one died last and when, so it is easier for other's to verify your claim)
Example 2Victory Boogie-Woogie (Q1248830) → "Mondrian/Holtzman Trust claims the work is still under copyright" (That work's copyright is disputed, which is modeled, however It would be nice to explain)
Example 3Statue of Liberty (Q9202) → "Based on Gustave Eiffel's date of death in 1923" (for European copyright) and "Publication date is assumed to be 1886, when statute was placed in the public location without restriction on making copies" (for US copyright)
Format and edit filter validationsyntax clarification (P2916), constraint clarification (P6607), determination method (P459)
Planned usereplace uses of comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) as qualifier of copyright status (P6216)


Proposed as a result of the discussion to un-deprecate comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) property. copyright status (P6216) statements can get quite complicated and current format might not be able to capture full reasoning behind some of the decisions. Especially with determination method (P459) qualifier, there is a fine balance between too specific items and too broad ones. This property would allow us to keep on using generic reasons in determination method (P459) qualifier while allowing us to be more precise with this free-text clarification. My first choice was to resurrect comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) property, but I was convinced that a new narrow scope property might be better. --Jarekt (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This is not structured data. Plain text explanations are not within Wikidata's scope. --Yair rand (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yair rand, Yes this is not structured data and it is not meant to be. It is meant to help other users that come after us to understand why we picked some combination of parameters. For example we claim that Statue of Liberty (Q9202) is in Public domain in the US because it was published before more than 95 years ago. That is as far as structured data will take us. However for future users that might be puzzled by that statement it could be useful to explain that "publication date is assumed to be 1886, when statute was placed in the public location without restriction on making copies". A free text explanation would be preferable to adding publication date (P577) to the item. User:Izno proposed (here) to create new property as opposed to using comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) which is what we do now. Is there a better place to add such information? --Jarekt (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Igromania ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a video game at the website
RepresentsIgromania (Q4197757)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainvideo game (Q7889)
Example 1The Last of Us Part II (Q27950674)23766
Example 2Death Stranding (Q24666782)21791
Example 3Ghost of Tsushima (Q42564798)28874
Example 4God of War (Q24589167)21787
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Formatter URL$1/-


Wikidata property related to video games (Q28147643). Igromania is Russian web site of a very large database of video game news and reviews. Kirilloparma (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NooSFere edition ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a edition in NooSFere Database
RepresentsNooSFere (Q3343389)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainversion, edition, or translation (Q3331189)
Allowed values-?[1-9]\d*
Example 1Atlas des brumes et des ombres (Q27237402)-322323
Example 2Q191917902146565045
Example 3Harry Potter à l'école des sorciers (Q58464836)-319272
Planned usematch existing version, edition, or translation (Q3331189), remove isbn from literary work (Q7725634)
Number of IDs in sourcethousand
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886), wikidata doesn't have all edition
Formatter URL$1
Robot and gadget jobswill be added to mix'n'match
See alsoNooSFere book ID (P5571), ISFDB publication ID (P1234)


Correct bad match like here, cleanup literary work by moving isbn matching to NooSFere (Q3343389).

May be add on the template.

eru [Talk] [french wiki] 06:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


Ash Crow
Thierry Caro
Nomen ad hoc
Marianne Casamance
Le Passant
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

TV Tropes identifier[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier in TV Tropes
RepresentsTV Tropes (Q2537428)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Game of Thrones (Q23572)Series/GameOfThrones
Example 2A Song of Ice and Fire (Q45875)Literature/ASongOfIceAndFire
Example 3A Feast for Crows (Q1764445)Literature/AFeastForCrows
Example 4George R. R. Martin (Q181677)Creator/GeorgeRRMartin
Example 5damsel in distress (Q2293837)Main/DamselInDistress
Example 6Death Note (Q1834)Manga/DeathNote
Example 7Metal Gear Solid (Q6582527)VideoGame/MetalGearSolid
Example 9Taxi Driver (Q47221)Film/TaxiDriver
Example 10Dragon Ball (Q2020)Franchise/DragonBall
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1


ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Zerabat (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Mohammed Adam (T) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Cwf97 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Esteban16 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Peterchanws Brasig Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Video games ValterVB Josve05a LydiaPintscher Ermanon Cbrown1023 Discoveranjali Mushroom Queryzo Danrok Rogi Escudero Mbch331 Jura Jobu0101 Jklamo Jon Harald Søby putnik ohmyerica AmaryllisGardener FShbib Andreasmperu Li Song Tiot Udi Oron ~ אודי אורון CennoxX Harshrathod50 U+1F350 Bodhisattwa (talk) Shisma Wolverène Tris T7 TT me Esteban16 Antoine2711

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Movies Konggaru Starry K. Zerabat Erne Mogilevich Santer AldNonUcallinme? Thibaut120094 Shikeishu C933103 Sight Contamination -Zest ReaperDawn Sakretsu

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Anime_and_Manga

TV Tropes (Q2537428) is a database of cultural works (movies, TV shows, manga, books, video games, media franchises) and associated trope (Q843227) and other narratrive concepts.

Do we want one property, or one per concept? I see three possibilities:

One property
  • TVTropes ID
Two properties
  • TVTropes trope ID (/Main/)
  • TVTropes person ID (/Creator/)
  • TVTropes work ID (/[Manga|Series|Film|Franchise|VideoGame|Literature|/<id>])
Several properties
  • TVTropes trope ID
  • TVTropes person ID
  • TVTropes TV show ID
  • TVTropes manga ID
  • TVTropes film ID
  • TVTropes video game ID
  • TVTropes book ID
  • TVTropes franchise ID

Jean-Fred (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, here’s a SPARQL query of the current references to on Wikidata: Jean-Fred (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


  • I support the inclusion of TV Tropes. I'm however not quite sure about the best way to do it, as well, as their URL structure is a bit chaotic. Creating separate properties for each distinct category on the site could IMO result in too many properties, since in addition to the ones you mention, there's also categories/"namespaces" like /advertising, /comicbook, /ComicStrip, /Roleplay, /Ride, /WebAnimation, /WesternAnimation, /Myth and even /Disney (see here for a list). And when an animated film like Pinocchio (Q4341553) for example isn't located in the same namespace as other animated films, but under Disney/Pinocchio, the site doesn't make it easy to create well-definied separate properties. I like your second option - separate properties for tropes (/Main), persons/companies (/Creator) and works (/*). But unfortunately, it seems among those work namespaces, not all contain just works. /Music for example seems to also contain singers and bands (see here), meaning persons aren't all contained in the /Creator namespace. There's also the /UsefulNotes category, which contains people, places, events and much more, along with works they appear in. Those could also be interesting to include, but don't fit into one of those three categories. A single property might be more unwieldy, but has the advantage that we don't have to care about all the intricacies of what kind of entries are contained in each namespace and that entries for persons are spread across various namespaces. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with a single global id property. No need to bother with splitting away the namespaces (because that's really what they are), especially as we won't need to have a wiki id the way we do for Fandom and Gamepedia articles. Circeus (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Gamepedia Wiki id[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe wiki name on Gamepedia
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainvideo game (Q7889)
Allowed values[a-z0-9-]+
Example 1World of Warcraft (Q131007)wow
Example 2Magic: The Gathering (Q207302)mtg (the Fandom counterpart is merging into this one)
Example 3Civilization VI (Q24050047)civ6 (no equivalent on Fandom, which has a wiki for the series instead)
Example 4Endless Legend (Q18215873)endlesslegend (this one is apparently the literal official wiki)
Number of IDs in sourceas of submitting this proposal, 2,345, but there are likely a sizeable number that have or can have no match on WikiData (e.g. Civ 6 Customization wiki)
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://$
See alsoGamepedia article ID (P6623), Fandom Wikia article ID (P6262), Fandom wiki ID (P4073)


This property seems like a reasonable way to complete the set between Gamepedia article ID (P6623), Fandom Wikia article ID (P6262) and Fandom wiki ID (P4073). It's kinda surprising it was forgotten given the differences in coverage that may exist. Circeus (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Art Gallery of South Australia work ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of a work in the collection of the Art Gallery of South Australia
RepresentsArt Gallery of South Australia (Q705557)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values\d*
Example 1An Aboriginal Queen (Q28808976)25692
Example 2Fish catch and Dawes Point, Sydney Harbour (Q28805969)23928
Example 3Madonna and Child (Q28794199)24096
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usepossible mix'n'match or bot runs
Number of IDs in source18348
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1/
Robot and gadget jobsyes


A big collection of notable artwork. -- 99of9 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, looks good to me, as of now. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)