Wikidata talk:Introduction

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

First person/First person plural[edit]

Hello, in the last sentence of the paragraph before the last one the first person singular is used in I hope. Isn't it better to use the first person plural instead, so We hope? This text should speak for the whole Wikidata team. Regards, --Michawiki (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Fixed :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lydia. Don't forget to change translation message Translations:Wikidata/Introduction/12. --Michawiki (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What more?[edit]

Right now this is a project for sorting interwiki links between equivalent articles in various languages. Where are the other ideas for the potential of this project? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see meta:Wikidata for what we're working on now until the end of the initial development. For things after that please see meta:Wikidata/Future. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much languages[edit]

I think linking twice each language (<languages/> & {{IntroductionLanguages}}) is not very useful, is it ? — Ltrl G, 17:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you. And not only on this page. --Zanka (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


For Russian section there are English shortcuts. I've created shk WD:I-RU, but how can it be put there? Ignatus (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved shortcuts to translatable section. Now waiting that somebody of the translation administrators mark this version for translation so you can use your own shortcuts. --Stryn (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now it should work. Try to replace English shortcuts with your shortcuts. --Stryn (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ignatus (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info?[edit]

There is text "First parts of phase 2 was deployed on Wikidata in February 4. Deployment on the English Wikipedia is planned for February 11 and, on the rest of Wikipedias, for February 27." But I think that February 11 is the day when phase 1 (not phase 2) will be deployed on English Wikipedia (source: blog post). And phase 2 was deployed on Wikidata in February 4 and will be deployed a few weeks later on the first Wikipedias (blog post). --Stryn (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct according to current plan :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already corrected that several hours ago. Please check that my edits are correct. :) --Sannita - not just another sysop 19:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what's the difference between Wikidata and dbpedia[edit]

I just heard about the existence of the project and am trying to figure out whether this is an improved version of dbpedia, a competitor, or complementary. If complementary, how so? Is that an appropriate topic for here or for another page? TMLutas (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WD Phase II is very similar. Dbpedia has already defined hundreds of properties, datatypes and ontology classes, and the dbpedia people have invited Wikidata to reuse this. See meta:DBpedia and Wikidata. I think it is a petty that we have not taken the opportunity to do that, instead of definbing these properties again. Important differences are that dbPedia is not a Wikimedia project, and that Wikidata also allows users to edit the data – not only bots scraping Wikipedia. Mange01 (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newest project?[edit]

The page says Wikidata is the newest project since Wikiversity. What about Wikivoyage? Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 21:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata was the newest project since Wikiversity. Wikivoyage was launched after Wikidata, I think, so now it's newest. --Stryn (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usable datatypes[edit]

The text says: "For the moment 3 datatypes can be used" Is this correct? Which 3 datatypes can be used? Which ones cannot be used? --Redaktor (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this part of text. Now it's: "For the moment 4 datatypes (Item, Commons media, String, Time) can be used." You can see them which are currently available here: Special:ListDatatypes. --Stryn (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki templates[edit]

A Wikidata goal is Cross-wiki infobox consistency. What about Cross-wiki consistency in the naming of templates? Is that a goal? Is there an existing effort/project on that? See en:Wikipedia:PDOMG#Edicts for an example of inconsistency.--Elvey (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the idea – it was also raised by other users – but it's out of the scope of Wikidata. You can link templates like you can link articles but you can't force neither templates nor articles to have the same name or content. A possible idea for an RFC you could start is to allow transclusion of templates from meta: to all other wikis. --Thiemo Mättig (WMDE) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of deployment on Wikidata[edit]

The timeline of deployment on Wikidata section of this article has a timeline chart where the x-axis legend has only one datapoint labeled: 2013. As a stand-alone graphic, it is unclear whether moving one tick mark to the left or right represents a year, a quarter, a decade, an eon, or what. Combining it with the bullet discussion below, it would appear that the difference between tick marks represents a variable length of time. It's unclear whether the red bar ending date is October 2012 when it was rolled out on Wikidata or March 6, 2013 when it was rolled out on "all Wikipedias" (is this the right term, versus something like "all Wikimedia projects"?).

  • If it means October 2012, then the labeling of the point as 2013 is in error, and since the green bar ends on February 4 (presumably 2013, but unstated), then the time between hash marks represents about 5 months. This is approximately consistent with the length allowed for the blue box, which ends in "late 2013" (approximately now), but if this applied to the hash marks to the left of the 2013 label, then 9 hash marks = about 45 months or close to 4 years, which contradicts the earlier claim that this effort started in 2012.
  • If instead it means March 6, 2013, then the green bar covers a time frame of -1 month to February 4, and the chart makes about no sense at all.

Can a bit more labeling be added so the intent of this chart is clarified? Alternately, should the chart be removed, since it doesn't seem to be showing anything more than that phase I came before phase II, which was before phase III, but without any meaning to the relative length of the bars? For someone who came here trying to figure out just what the heck Wikidata is, I found this chart confused things. Salton Finneger (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"all Wikimedia projects" contains much more than Wikipedia. Some of other projects are Commons, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, etc. On March 6 Wikidata was really deployed on all Wikipedias. --Michgrig (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to update this a month or so ago – see Template:Timeplan-dev/text. The labels there aren't entirely clear either, but were meant to refer to the beginning of that calendar year. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time to update the timeline to depict reality more accurately.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a typo[edit]

Under the section "What do we have so far?", I found this typo:

"Users can give mountain peaks, places or buldings geocoordinates, link an item about a township to it´s next higher administrative unit, link a country to its highest representative, to its national anthem and so on."

It should be "its". Athelwulf (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. --Stryn (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new project or not?[edit]

In the opening statement, "Wikidata is a new project" has changed to "Wikidata is a project", but the following drilldown of the statement still starts with "a new project". For consistency I guess that item should be removed. – Danmichaelo (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License link should be translatable[edit]

For the Norwegian translation, say, I would like to link to rather than . I also find "Creative Commons 1.0" somewhat ambiguious, and would like to see it replaced with "CC0 1.0" or "Creative Commons Zero 1.0". – Danmichaelo (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please use reds and greens that are easy to distinguish (e.g., bright green and dark red, or green:0,255,0 and red:255,0,0). I know that other shades are more fashionable, but such info graphics are hard to read for color vision deficient people.

Yellow is also an option! On screens this is easy to see, as long as it is no text. And it would be nice if graphics would be optimized for viewing on screen, before considering projectors. Yellow is a great color for screens, and much less ambiguous than using various shades of red, green, orange that are too similar.

This is a big issue with infographics in general and use of color to convey information. So it would be really helpful if Wikidata set a good example.

Thanks.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

I changed the colors in one of the info graphics (before, after) from standard red, green, blue to our own logo's red, green, blue tones (Wikimedia's colors also). As those colors probably have been inspired by our logo colors anyway, I guess that's closer to what was intended in the first place. Now the question is: Are those tones better than before? The other graphics on the page could get adjusted as well then. --YMS (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


"The data in Wikidata is published under Creative Commons 1.0 as public domain" Here is a 0 or zero missing (Creative Commons 0). Math1985 (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, CC 1.0 is public domain, not CC 0. - dcljr (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? It doesn't look like it to me. 00:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "CC0 1.0" CC0. Yes. I can't change it, though. You'll need an admin. - dcljr (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected|see above}}

where is it? --Akkakk 12:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed to read "the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication 1.0". - dcljr (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link stuff[edit]

I think it would be helpful to link important terms in the "What does this mean?" section. If people really need an explanation of these things, they would probably appreciate links to more information. For example:

And so forth. (Note that "Wikimedia project" could link to foundation:Our projects instead.) I would do the linking myself, but of course the page is protected. Perhaps semi-protection might be more appropriate? - dcljr (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. --Thiemo Mättig (WMDE) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

broken links to data type stuff[edit]

The links in the line " For the moment, seven datatypes (Item, Commons media file, String, Time, Geographic coordinates, Number and URL) can be used for properties" are landing on a page that should redirect to mw:Wikibase/DataModel

Done, thanks. --Thiemo Mättig (WMDE) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

broken link: status updates 2013_03_01[edit]

should "Status updates/2013 03 01" link to Wikidata:Status updates/2013 03 01 ? --MilesTeg81 (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Feel free to edit the page if you found such obvious mistakes. --Thiemo Mättig (WMDE) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

Particularly the Wikidata:Introduction#Timeline_of_deployment_on_Wikidata: "The third phase (lists) will allow the automatic updating and translation of list articles. Planned deployment of this phase on Wikidata is in late 2013." seems like it can use an update. Also, w:Wikidata has a citation needed for the entire Phase 3, somebody knowledgeable about this could spend a few useful minutes expanding/referencing that section there. Wikipedia article, finally, seems to provide a bit more info on Phase 2 deployment which is missing from the Wikidata own entry at Wikidata:Introduction... --Piotrus (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasizing Wikidata concepts[edit]

Within the scope of Wikidata, an item is not an item in a generic sense, but it is a particular technical concept. Same for statements, references and so on. These are all particular concepts/classes that have a more specific meaning than their native generic expression. In my opinion, in textual content (and especially on the introduction page), Wikidata concepts need to be emphasized. If not, new users might not understand that these words represent certain concepts and have a more special meaning. Intentionally, I had capitalized such concepts which was copy-edited by @MJ94:. No problem with removing the capitalization, concepts could also be in italics or linked always, but, in my opinion, some emphasis is necessary. Random knowledge donator (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram & translation[edit]

The diagram (Wikidata statement.svg) should be tranlated with {{Localized media}} (for exemple Wikidata statement ru.svg already exists). Notifying Matěj Suchánek, who marked the page for translation. — Ltrlg (talk), 07:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltrlg: Thanks for linking that template for me, now I am able to use it. Localized both images. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Matěj Suchánek — Ltrlg (talk), 07:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Linking[edit]

Is there anyway to directly link to a specific Wikipedia resource using the WikiData item identifier number?

For instance, I would like to redirect from something like:

Or alternatively, maybe something like this:

directly to:  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greg.collver (talk • contribs).

@Greg.collver: Try Special:GoToLinkedPage, it has been added very recently. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this example: Seems to work. Thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greg.collver (talk • contribs) at 11:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Or, even shorter: — which means you can use an interwiki link such as the following from within Wikimedia wikis (even this one): d:Special:GoToLinkedPage/enwiki/Q2063748. - dcljr (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activities for the Wikidata-thons[edit]

The following is a list of Activities we had for our December WikiDatathon in NYC. Currently at: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Feel free to use this list or post on the page as a template for similar events. OR drohowa (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Activities for the Wikidata-thons[edit]

Bring your own ideas!

Interface language[edit]

Why my interface is all chinese? How do I switch it to English? Altenmann (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Preferences --Leyo 22:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose and use of the data[edit]

After reading the introduction, I don't feel I have a sense of this project's purpose (or reason for existing) and how the data accumulated here is used by Wikimedia and external projects. I would like to see such info added. Stevietheman (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!!!Stevietheman. looks like nobody answered... My question is: WHY? There should be a section on why wikidata.Leyo- can you help,please?--Wuerzele (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Storing and maintaining the interwiki links in a central place IMO reason enough for Wikidata. Phase 2 has started, see en:Category:Templates using data from Wikidata for examples. --Leyo 22:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stevietheman as I understand it, the eventual (longterm/eventualism) goal, is to have many (not all, but many) of the objective facts that are duplicated in hundreds of our projects, centralized here instead (or additionally, depending on how we're looking at it, and particularly considering prose differently than infoboxes).
For example, when the latest figures for the population of Switzerland are published, we can add one more "point in time" entry to the "population" statement at Switzerland (Q39), and mark that as the "Preferred rank", at which point all 280+ Wikipedias will have automagically updated infoboxes.
See also w:en:Category:Knowledge bases and w:en:Template:Computable knowledge for some comparable endeavours and related articles.
(Note: I might have details or syntax wrong, or be out of date; I'm still learning many of the basics, myself!) HTH. Quiddity (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also, one other interesting avenue of exploration I know of, is list articles. See w:en:List of public art in Sylt for example, and 5 other List articles, plus numerous user-sandbox-experiments, in w:en:Category:Articles based on Wikidata. Read more about it in this Signpost section. Many interesting possibilities in the longrun, especially harnessing together content in Wikipedia, Commons, Wikisource, and beyond. Quiddity (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the introduction content doesn't fully explain the project's purpose (or reason for existing) and how the data accumulated here is used by Wikimedia and internal/external projects (nutshell description for public consumption, not esoteric details). I already had understood much of the above. What is the story behind Wikidata being started and what is it for, in simple terms? That's what I want to know in an introduction. Stevietheman (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hm, I agree with these questions as well. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tense consistense[edit]

All the other bullets in the "What does this mean" section are in the Present tense, so I suggest that

Collecting structured data. Unlike Wikimedia Commons, which collects media files, and the Wikipedias, which produce encyclopedic articles, Wikidata will collect data, in a structured form. This will allow easy reuse of that data by Wikimedia projects and third parties, and will enable computers to easily process and “understand” it.

be replaced with

Collecting structured data. Unlike Wikimedia Commons, which collects media files, and the Wikipedias, which produce encyclopedic articles, Wikidata collects data in a structured form. This allows easy reuse of that data by Wikimedia projects and third parties, and enables computers to easily process and “understand” it.

Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phases in development[edit]

Until the 'fundamental rewrite' by Random knowledge donator, there was a paragraph 'Timeline of deployment on Wikidata' with information about the phases (1. link repository 2. Infoboxes and properties 3. Lists and queries). These phases are mentioned on several other places. Also the Wikidata:News page links to this paragraph. While it can be argued that this introductory page is not the right place for this information, it should be somewhere. Bever (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some elements not translatable[edit]

The table headings "Element", "Property" and "Value" are not translatable now. For the first two, I guess we could get them from {{int:Wikibase-entity-item}} and {{int:Wikibase-entity-property}}, but I don't know if there's a message for "Value".. Perhaps the easiest is to just annotate all three with <translate>? Danmichaelo (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing this page[edit]

I have some thoughts for slightly expanding this page, but I'm a bit hesitant to edit given that it is already apparently translated into so many languages. Should I feel free to "be bold" (understanding that my work might be rolled back) or is this a page where all prospective changes are best discussed in advance? - Jmabel (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is usually welcome as well but I think the latter is better here. If it's to be a greater change, you may get appropriate audiance at wD:PC. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "There is more to come" section[edit]

Would anyone object to the removal of the "There is more to come" section? I don't think it makes so much sense at this point to emphasize future development, and the page on Meta is no longer the best place to find out about Wikidata development, I think. The mailing list isn't where the most relevant updates are provided or where most discussions are held, and the remaining data types to implement aren't particularly important. --Yair rand (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short description in a Wikipedia article...[edit]

Does at Wikidata entry mean a short description in a Wikipedia article is not required? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bullet point "Multilingual" has a problem with its wording[edit]

Multilingual. Editing, consuming, browsing, and reusing the data is fully multilingual. Data entered in any language is immediately available in all other languages. Editing in any language is possible and encouraged.

(Italic emphasis mine). Digital data cannot be "consumed". Its use by one person does not make it unavailable for anyone else – please see for more information. Please can this wording be changed? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


To facilitate finding known typos, it seems better to list them as subsections (or via bullets). I was going to rename the existing section 'Typo' to this, but I decided to create a new section to avoid conflicts.

the the [Wikidata mailing list][edit]

It looks like the second 'the' is generated from the link. This is under the 'There is more to come' section.

Tomasohara (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomasohara: ✓ Done, thanks for spotting it! —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]