Help talk:Sources

From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata talk:Sources)
Jump to: navigation, search

How info should be displayed[edit]

The sources field is multiline. Now, we have to decide how to use it. Some options:

  • Option 1

Use a standard citation format, for instance cited in:

stated in: item about some book
author: Some Author
publisher: Some Publisher
page: page

see [1], P231

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Author, publisher etc. are properties of a book and they belong in the item about the book. This solution would increase workload and create the potential for data consistency problems. Silver hr (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So for each book you want to have an item ? Do you have an idea of the number of new items we will have to create ? Then for a book like "The lord of the ring" we can have hundreds of items because of different publisher, different languages, different editions,... Snipre (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you describe what exactly you think is the problem? The number of items, which you think will be too large? WD is a computer database, it's not constrained by space (practically), therefore I don't consider "too many items" to be a valid argument in itself. Besides, if all the component statements for a source statement would have to be entered every time anyway, it really is no different to instead enter them into an item and then use the item in the source statement. Actually, that's even less work in cases where you have several source statements that are the same--instead of entering author, publisher etc. every time per source statement, you enter it once into an item and then you only have to enter the item into the source statements. Silver hr (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 2

Try to store as much info in the cited items themselves, for instance by creating one item for each edition of the book, and only add the part that cannot be stored there:

stated in: item about a particular edition of a book
page: page
For option 2 it is important to know how data will be accessible in wikipedia article: if data of one article is "downloaded" when somebody open the wikipedia article, that's a problem to save part of the references on a different item of the wikidata database. Snipre (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The inclusions states that it will be possible to query data from other items. I imagine we could have a template that would expand the reference based on the reference ID. --Zolo (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I think both option 1 and 2 will work fine, but option 1 will create many redundant data, and the maintenance will be difficult. If I want to add sources to the "member state" property of United Nations, I certainly don't want to add every source properties (author, publisher, edition, ISBN...) for nearly 200 times.
I think this option is good for books, but I am not sure how to deal with other kind of sources (I suppose we don't want to create items for every single webpages) --Stevenliuyi (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
If we do not have an item for the resource, then it would not really be option 1 either. I would probably support creating an item for every cited peer-reviewed scholarly article, but I suppose that there will always be cases were we have to hardcode the full reference in the sources field. --Zolo (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
@Stevenliuyi stop thinking of manual edition with wikidata: bots can do the work. Snipre (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 3

Note use "stated in some item", but rather an identifier like ISBN or DOI, when possible

ISBN ISBN of the book
page: page

See [2], P180 (depicts), Leonardo

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How does wikipedia articles get data (title, author, etc.) from single ISBN/DOI? --Stevenliuyi (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Er, yes, that does not sound practical. If that is possible though, it might be nice allow humans to use it and devise a bot to convert it to format 2. --Zolo (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Citing databases[edit]

  • Option 1: use a general ID property:
stated in: item about the database
ID: string containing the relevant ID in the database

  • Option 2: use a database specific property when available, a general ID property otherwise (see [3], P88):
stated in: item about the database
database specific property: string containing the relevant ID in the database
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIt makes it easy to automatically generate external links. --Zolo (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Option 3: when possible, just the database specific property, with no header like "stated in" (see [4], P195)
database-specific property: string
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That is clear and simple, but we seem to need the "stated in" header for books, and not using it for databases, may introduce some confusing inconsistency.--Zolo (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there would be confusing inconsistency. The "source" field for a statement already has the same meaning as the "stated in" property. The only reason we have to use "stated in" is because the design of the system is such that we have to use some property. In this case there would be a property that had a more specific meaning than "stated in", and one should generally use specific properties instead of their general equivalents. Silver hr (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Option 4: when possible, just the database specific property that has an item data type. The corresponding item contains the database specific property as a string and the necessary data (author etc.) from the database.
database-specific property: item about the reference
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If we want to display the reference data and we don't have a way to dynamically pull it from external databases, then I think this is the only choice. Also, I just realized that if the data type of the property would be item, then the property could just be "stated in", not database-specific. Silver hr (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
By "database-specific" I meant specific to one database, not the same property for all databases. I think we should always provide the ID of the database entry, as it may not always be the one specifically about the item. --Zolo (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I assumed that :). What I meant was the following; I'll give an example. Suppose we had a property "PMID" with the item datatype, and that property could only link to items that have, besides the actual article data, a "PMID string" property which would hold the actual PMID. And then suppose we had the same thing for DOI. Then, the properties "PMID" and "DOI" could simply be replaced by "stated in". So, if we have "stated in: Q#" and we wanted to know what kind of source Q# is, we could query it for a "PMID string" or "DOI string" property and read the value. Silver hr (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure to follow you: how would that allow you to say "the reelin gene is fully sequence according to Uniprot entry P78509" ? Or are you suggesting to create an item for every database entry ? --Zolo (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You bring up an interesting point. I was thinking in terms of citation databases, which contain articles/article metadata, so the item created would represent the article and contain its metadata because the metadata is needed for display. For non-citation databases, such as your example, option 3 would probably be better. Silver hr (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I need to cite a lot of different databases for the Stratigraphy Task Force. Probably one per country (or geologic survey). I would favor Option 2, and was wondering if somebody with more experience could write a guideline for database citing on this page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Some general questions[edit]

  1. Will/should Wikidata support Wikipedia references? Will/should Wikipedia use Wikidata to store and display references instead of the system in use presently? I've always assumed so, though I haven't seen a specific official statement or community consensus to that effect. Personally I think it should; after all references are just another kind of data.
  2. How much should Wikidata rely on external databases? This question is quite relevant here because it seems to me that pretty much every reference item is in some external database and has an identifier through which it can be referenced. On the one hand, WD aims to be an all-encompassing database so why not? But on the other hand, that would essentially be data duplication, which should generally be avoided. But the key question here seems to be: can we automatically extract reference elements (author etc.) from references in external databases? If not, then obviously the data will have to be stored in Wikidata. On a related note, this is also the approach Wikipedia takes; besides the actual embedding of references in article text, there is this - over 30k references stored as individual template subpages for doi alone (done by Citation bot).

Silver hr (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "Will/should Wikidata support Wikipedia references?"? As for the second question, it will certainly have to cite many external databases (e.g. a census bureau database to get population data, among many others). But I think the goal is to build a free self-contained database. Superm401 (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. On the technical side, I do not think we have anything special for citing Wikipedia. In practice, bots have added many statements with the somewhat vague referrence: "imported from Wikipedia in English". For the few discussions I have seen on the issue, using Wikipedia as a referrence is only a temporary solution. To me, that makes sense. Wikipedia is usually a very indirect source, and a rather instable one at that. Wikipedia is supposed to have external sources for just about anything it claims, and using this external source here is more informative than just saying "Wikipedia says".
  2. There is no plan to directly transclude data from an external database to Wikidata. As it is much easier to import data from databases than from texts, I would imagine it makes sense to import much of them (it is easier to deal with one database than with several). One thing that I dont know however, is how to deal with databases that use special controlled vocabularies. That's one of the questions around P:P107: what should we do if the definition for person is different in an external database than in the main Wikidata item for person ? --Zolo (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If there is no plan to transclude data from external DBs to WD, then the logical conclusion is that such data needs to be imported. Which leads us to the question: which data is that? At the very least, any data that needs to be displayed (such as article/book citations: title, author etc.). As for everything else, I don't know.
Regarding your question, could you provide an example problem? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.
Silver hr (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In non-scientifical fields, words are often loosely defined, so that some databases have to rely on home-made controlled vocabularies. Take the Mérimée database for French listed buildings that is extensively used in fr.wikipedia. It classifies building by "building type". Building types form a tree that I once copied there. However, this tree is certainly not the only possible one, and Wikidata will most probably use a different system. That will "fell" the tree. At the same time, we may imagine that the people who made the database knew their stuff, and that their system has some relevance. In this case, should we add a "Mérimée type" to keep the Mérimée hierarchy safe ? --Zolo (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, adopting any particular controlled vocabulary could be construed as POV. So I guess the solution would be to allow either none of them or any of them if they're notable enough. As for what's notable enough, I don't know.
Also, I assume you meant 'add a "Mérimée type"' as a property, which is certainly one way of doing it. But it just crossed my mind that it might also work by using an "instance of"/"subclass of" statement with an appropriate source, which means there would be a multitude of such statements with different sources, thus negating the need for vocabulary-specific properties. I'm not sure which solution would be better though. (BTW there is no page at the link you provided, but I think I understood you anyway :) ).
Silver hr (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

@no.2: We should create the items we need, see: Wikidata talk:Notability#Main types (GND). --Kolja21 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikidata has to repect wikipedia rule about sourced information. without reference no wikipedia should use data from wikidata.
External databases has to be cited and data have to be duplicated and integrated in wikidata as wikidata will be the database for data inclusion in wikipedia. Then I think you won't be able to extract most of the data from external databases because authority databases are most of the time copyrighted and not compatible with wikidata license. Snipre (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I see now I haven't been clear in my first question, so I'll rephrase (and edit the original): Will/should Wikipedia use Wikidata to store and display references instead of the system in use presently? Silver hr (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How do we cite references in wikidata ?[edit]

We have to define a policy for reference in wikidata. Here we have some issue to solve in order to provide a policy:

If no item ?[edit]

Right now most item relies to a wikipedia article so properties like author or title are item datatype. But for reference most of books or authors don't have a wikipedia article and therefore an item in wikidata. It is not possible to have a property with 2 different datatypes and working with 2 properties (one string datatype and another item datatype) for the same parameter is not an possibility if we want to create an homogenuous work to treat data (query, list,...).

So for references there are two possibilities: define an item property and we have to create an item each time it is needed (one item for each title and each author: millions of potential new items just for references purposes and in most of the cases these items will be used only once). We have to find a solution for books but we have to think at scientific and newspaper articles too: an unique solution is necessary. Snipre (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I would add that IRI is important. I realize that web references are sometimes discouraged (e.g. due to linkrot), but in some cases all or almost all the reliable sources are online. Superm401 - Talk 00:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If item exists ?[edit]

If an item exists (or if we decide to create for each title an item) we have to think how we will formally add reference data: do we want to have item for each specific book defined by edition, publisher and ISBN ? In that case a book like "The lord of the ring" can have several dozens of items. Or do we want to integrate data of different books in the same item ? But in that case how to refer to a specific book described in the item page ? Or do we want to work with mixed properties: the title and author properties are defined in a main item and other properties are added in the reference section of the item we want to source ? Snipre (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A possible solution: The Open Annotation Data Model[edit]

The Open Annotation Data Model is composed by three elements: body, annotation and target. A body would be an article represented by an item (Qxxx), the annotation/reference could take the form Rxxxx, and whenever we have a primary source (i.e. a book, article in Wikisource) it could take the form Sxxx. It could be also done with properties, however it would add an additional layer of cognitive complexity (i.e. it would not be that easy to spot on the first sight the function of each). The OA model simplifies the organization and provides an intuitive logic structure. Regarding the "The lord of the ring" example, if the OA model is used and there is a reference between bodies which are "works" (in the FRBR sense), then the annotation can hold the data about the "manifestation" (edition, isbn, page nr, etc). There is also an ongoing discussion about the relationship between "works" and "manifestations" that I suggest following at the Wikidata:Books task force.--Micru (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but this implies an important development from WD development team so that is no the objectives of this discussion: we need to define a policy with the existing tools in order to allow a correct sourcing of data now and not at the end of the year. Snipre (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily needs more development. It can be done with properties and leave it like that, or migrated later on.--Micru (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Conceptually, that sounds like a good solution, but I do not think that using a different namespaces would be a very good idea. There are items for a huge varieties of things, and we should certainly be able to differentiate between them. But we cannot use namespaces for that, as there could be so many of them (actually, if we had just two of namespaces, I would think it should be one for items that should contain real data and another for those that are just hubs for sitelinks, but I suspect that using always using properties is the one really scalable solution). --Zolo (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Specific properties for reference ?[edit]

I think that the best solution is finally to have a set of properties used only for reference purpose and which are only string datatype: for title, for author,... Snipre (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not quite see why you are proposing that. I think we clearly need a string-type property for titles, but that could also be useful outside references. Using different properties at different places would be confusing at best. Using strings for authors and publishers would be a step backward in terms of consistency, machine readability and "internationalizability" (think of Japanese people!). Even for minor authors, an item with just a name (and ideally a VIAF link) would be better than a string. --Zolo (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If we need string property for title we need string property for author and working with two datatypes for the same property is not possible for inclusion or query: we hwvae to double every query to check both properties when looking for one value. By using only string properties for references we know what properties to query when looking for information. Snipre (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
And if a book is published only in Japanese it is not right to translate it without the agreement of the author. What's happen is someone is doing a wrong translation ? Only authorized persons like authors, publishers can do a translation. If newspapers or other medias are doing translation we can use it but only by putting the reference, but no contributors can translate from is own decision an original title. By source we can only use information of a real document and the document is not translated no translation is allowed. If you are using a Japanese version of a book to source a statement you have to put the Japanese title even if there is an english version of the book. You can not mix informations Snipre (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not proposing to translate titles. That is precisely why it should be a string. As of now, do not have any property for the title. We use the label instead, but the label is not a property, and as I have shown elsewhere, there are many cases where it will not be the same as the title. Regardless, titles, author names and publisher names should be transliterated somewhere, as is standard practice. Otherwise things will be very hard to read (contrary to translations, transliterations are routinely done for convenience). We could use labels for that, but it would require dedicated items. --Zolo (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

New RFC about references and sources in Wikidata[edit]

Following the discussions in the Books task force and here, I have started a new RFC about sources and references in Wikidata to summarize the different options and to gather feedback from the community.--Micru (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


The parameter Volume in the table is really two different things for books and scientific articles (meaning 4 and 3 in wikt:volume#Noun) The English language happens to use the same word for these two things, but other languages don't. I think they should be handled as different parameters. Byrial (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if there are different nouns the concept is the same: it is a subdivision of a work. But we can think if there is real problems: if it is just an extension of a concept, there is still the possibility to explain that in the description place. Snipre (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


How to insert a reference to laws or judgments? --β16 - (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What kind of parameters do you have for a law article ? And what kind of data do you want to source ? Snipre (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The parameters can be: type (in Italy for example there are: Legge, Decreto, Regio Decreto, and others), date, number, and maybe title. It can be used for source of variation or creation of new adminstrative division (for example "legge 11 giugno 2004 n. 147" for P571 in Province of Fermo (Q16167)) or for the granting of flags and coats of arms. --β16 - (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't you use the offical journal of the republic instead of the law ? The proble with law is to find a common system to cite all national laws of every country. So if you really want to use legal texts please start to compare the different legal structures and to find a common structure. From my point of view this will lead to the same problem as for the administrative divisions. Snipre (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
According to w:en:Category:Legal citation and w:en:Category:Law citation templates a common structure that can be used consist of: State, title (or short title, or name), type, date\year, number, optionally subsection (or paragraph). --β16 - (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Web pages[edit]

Is there a temporary workaround for Web pages? The section is currently unhelpful, asking not to create items for them, but to use something currently impossible. --AVRS (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Without the url datatype there is no temporary solution and we won't propose a temporary solution because once we start with one system it is very difficult to modify the habits. Snipre (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientific article and author (P50)[edit]

Hi to all! I have a (small) problem with the authors of this scientific article: the two authors have not item in Wikidata. What property do I have to use? Thanks! --Paperoastro (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the authors can be verified you can create items for them. I created Peter Philip Eggleton (Q14559451) for you. I pasted the website where I found his information in the description so it can be transferred once we can cite web pages. In the mean time some of the information about his person can also be cited with the publication, because it is also a source for him being a person, and for his occupation. It would still be good to find his middle name if possible. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much! :-) --Paperoastro (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


In Kim Amb (Q3357572), I made some experiments with Sources, based on this edit by sv:User:Elinnea. The instructions tells me to "Add the database ID property to refer to a specific register of the database". The database in this case is DVD- or CD-ROM-based, and cannot be linked with an uri. The identifier in the database is here "Amb, Kim Oscar". I do not think it is a good idea to create a separate Property for this database. I thought of (OBSOLETE) title (use P1476, "title") (P357), but it's description tells "title of work"!. This can better be compared with the title of a specific article in an encyclopedia or dictionary. -- Lavallentalk(block) 14:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case better use the media section. If you don't want to create an item for that CD-ROM use "title" instead of "stated by". But as the sweden WP has a template for this reference perhaps it is a good idea to creat an item so just check if it is widely used and if yes create an item for the database and then you can use the "stated by" Snipre (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I modify the guidelines to cover all cases for databases. Snipre (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
An item for the CD-ROM was already created in this case. I linked it to a redirect to an article about the series of this database. (Not all parts have the same publisher.) But how do I add the information: "Amb, Kim Oscar"? -- Lavallentalk(block) 17:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You can use catalog code (P528): I started the discussion to extend the application field of the property. Snipre (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Generation of references based on source properties[edit]

For verification and as a use case, we created a LUA module which resembles the Taxobox, see Module:Taxobox. It also shows references for the used data. While not meant as being complete, it might be a starting point for someone who wants to create a general LUA module to handle source properties and generate the corresponding references.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

General strategy for data extraction in WP[edit]

First a lua module is necessary. Then the extraction has to work in 3 different levels:

  • Level 1: data available in the source section of the claim.
  • Level 2: specific item defined by the property "stated in"
  • Level 3: For book, item defined as work item or author item

Snipre (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Web page[edit]

If I have understood correctly, I should add this 2500 times? Since the GUI s***s, it's a h**l of a job! -- Lavallentalk(block) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For webpage, yes. If you take the example of a book, webpage is a like a page and creating an item for each page you use as reference will definitively explose the number of items. I can only recommand you to use a bot to perform this kind of addition. Try to see if a bot can do that, if not contact me, I am not a specialist but I have a bot for this kind of addition. See user:Chembot. Snipre (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This is the piece of information that will connect the Wikidata-item with the corresponding item in the database of Statistics Sweden, that can hardly be done by a bot in a safe way. -- Lavallentalk(block) 11:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
But you can do that in an excel sheet with data and match controls and then with a bot add the data through the API. What you need is just the matching of the Q-number and the code. Or you can do manually the import of the code and once you finish you provide the list of items you modified and the bot can do only the reference addition. Snipre (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to use it so often, you should really make a new item. Then you just use stated in (P248) in the source. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Tobias1984. I don't think we can propose that solution because at the end who is setting the limit ? And then for data extraction this will imply more tests. The code will needs to check there is an item for the webpage or not. So I prefer to say no but to propose automatic ways to add x times the same kind of data. We have bots for that. Snipre (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That is of course true what your saying and I don't remember if the previous RfC had something about limits (I'm thinking of the number of links to a certain item). The only thing that I don't think is a problem is the number of items. Google-Books has estimated that there are 130 million unique books en:Google Books. For us (13 million at the moment) that would only mean one order of magnitude more items. Adding government reports the number might climb to 150 or 200 million items, but in a few years that will hopefully be manageable by Wikidata. In any case the community can now gather experience with sourcing and hopefully we can soon find some kind of consensus on how to handle these things. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
What worries me more is author (P50). For Sveriges kommunindelning 1863-1993 (Q14849547) I had to create: Per Andersson (Q14849601). But the only thing I know about him is that he has written this book and that he is born 1961. There are so many "Per Andersson" that it's impossible to identify if there are any other objects with this title, who have the same name and is born 1961. I'm glad that it didn't was P. Andresson, then I would noy even know P21. -- Lavallentalk(block) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Searched on VIAF and found him :) Per Andersson --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm impressed! -- Lavallentalk(block) 17:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

original title in the original language[edit]

How to handle cases, when the source is in two or more languages? This far, I have added two "languages" and two "titles". -- Lavallen (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to your example ? Snipre (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you check both language editions or did you check one and assume the other was the same? You should really only link to the edition you used as a source. Filceolaire (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not two editions, it's one report written partly in Swedish, partly in English. Localities 2010 (Q14907217) is an example. The description in the report is in two languages, the title is in two languages. More or less all official reports from SCB looks like this, but those reports who are ~100 years old are written in French instead of English. If there would have been two editions, they would most likly have separate ISSN. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

point in time (P585)->retrieved (P813)[edit]

Who is responsible for this change? Is there a bot which exchanges the properties? Then I would like to add Integrated Taxonomic Information System (Q82575) and World Odonata List (Q13561342) to the queue. With What links here you find about 8000 items which use P585 in ~4 source claims per item which can be moved to P813.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two changes: see here and here. Snipre (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint.
The important information is publication date (P577) because it allows to expalin differences in a same web page over a certain period. When no publication date (P577) is available then retrieved (P813) can be used. If you have publication date (P577) retrieved (P813) becomes useless so it is not forbidden to add this information but it is not interesting: we don't require to provide the date when a contributor use a book for sourcing.
So my proposition for your questions: 1) if we start with some page, it would be difficile to manage item creation for webpage, 2) Same as for webpage. But this is only my opinion. Snipre (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

How do I add general literature about a person or a topic. Is there a property like "further reading"? -- 22:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Wikidata is not wikipedia: wikidata is working at the moment only with facts and their sources. So if you add information for a person you can add the corresponding sources. There are discussions about using wikidata as place to store literature data for wikipedia support but this is not yet accepted as notability policy. Snipre (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • For that to happen we'd need to support first bibliographic information from Wikipedia in Wikidata, and then checking which books are linked from a certain article. This has general acceptance, but the software it is not ready for this yet (mainly because of Bugzilla47930). With those book records you should be able to use the property main subject (P921) which would help to make faceted searches. In the future it might be feasible to replace the "further reading" lists with autogenerated lists, for instance replace w:Benjamin Franklin#Biographies with a search "main topic of creative work:'Benjamin Franklin' AND genre:'biography'", however we are still far from that.--Micru (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Conference paper[edit]

We should have a recommendation for citing conference papers, such as . Superm401 - Talk 02:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

See also en:Template:Cite conference. Superm401 - Talk 02:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

To Source or Not To Source[edit]

I tried my best recently to better source Douglas Adams (Q42), that is one of our Showcase items, since it bore a large number of "Imported from WP" statement sources. This item bears statements pointing to no less than 19 different authority control sources; if I was to follow Help:Sources/Items not needing sources#When the item has a property referring to an external source, there would barely be any statement source at all for that item... I preferred using stated in (P248) as suggested in Help:Sources#Trusted database. Do I misinterpret Items not needing sources ? LaddΩ chat ;) 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The link to an authority (in this example: "Douglas Adams (Q42) VIAF identifier (P214) 113230702") does not require a source but every other statement should be sourced. If not, how should one know which statements are supported by which trusted authorities? -- JakobVoss (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Source for a Commons image[edit]

Douglas Adams (Q42) uses image Douglas adams portrait cropped.jpg from Commons. Does this require any kind of sourcing info? It's already pretty clear on Commons, after clicking on the image. LaddΩ chat ;) 20:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Three possible answers - may other editors add their opinion:
1) this is one of the rare cases were Wikipedia is a viable source. The source of an image statement should be a document that proves the usage of this specific image as portrait.
2) aLternatively you could omit the source, so you as editor (It's already pretty clear to you) are the source of link between Douglas Adams (Q42) and the image.
3) The image source is, as stated in Commons. Commons templates should be moved to Wikidata, so the image would be an item with source information attached to it. -- JakobVoss (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Web sources referenced many times[edit]

How can we store a web source with many properties which is used many times, like a cite web source template, such as en:Template:Ru-pop-ref? --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You can add several properties in one source in several places. See how I have used this web page. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes I know. This is not the point. The point is, that I need to this (the same thing) several times. It is not productive, not desirable, and it might be inconsistent. See [6]. Should I do this for all Russian cities? --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have done the above 1700 times, so I know what you mean. But I guess you can treat "Всероссийская перепись населения 2010 года. Том 1" as a report, like I have done with this Swedish census from 2010. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
We need some kind of gadget for this. Nobody is going to source things as long as they have to fill in the same 5 field over and over again. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not sure if a normal gadget would help. Using something like labellister 3000 times does not make it easier than doing it by hand. We would need somthing like a script that is easy to modify to my own needs. -- Lavallen (.talk) 06:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
And what's about using bot to do that job ? If you have a certain number of values from a source better prepare the data in a specific form and ask a bot to do the import job. Snipre (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I added a feature request for Magnus' AutoList tool. I think, this could be beneficial for all who do not own a bot.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Nobody needs to have its own bot: just provide the data in the good format to a bot and put the request in the appropriate page. Snipre (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And I have added a similar request here --ValterVB (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles in books[edit]

It seems that we do not have guidelines for articles that are part of a collective book. Is Human Evolution (Q15864332), used in human (Q5)'s temporal range start (P523), ok ? I am not really with the "part of" but that's mostly because I am not really happy with using "part of" in source items in the first place. --Zolo (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between articles that have been published as part of a book and articles that have been published in a journal. Help:Sources can be used for both. What is missing in your citation is page (P304). A bit tricky is the destinction between works and editions. Right now we have only the 2009 edition of Evolution: The First Four Billion Years (Q15864345). But what happens if there will be a work item for this book? --Kolja21 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mock-up of a Wikidata {{Cite}}[edit]

If someone is interested: I created a prototype LUA module for a Wikidata-based {{Cite}}: Use it with {{#invoke:Cite|cite|qid=Q14405740}} to create the citation for Annotated checklist of the recent and extinct pythons (Serpentes, Pythonidae), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy, and distribution (Q14405740). This will result in:

Please use this very sparsely and only for model testing as it uses costly Javascript methods to retrieve the data. As soon as arbitrary item access is enabled by the developers, we can use Wikibase client functions and the same code will execute with high performance. Then, we may use it everywhere. If you want to speed this up, vote for bug 47930. Regarding the status of the module itself: Feedback and help is very welcome, much is still missing.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Very good idea. I like it very much. Unfortunately we have to wait until the defect 47930 is resolved. I think it would be simpler if the qid parameter is passed as first indexed parameter to avoid the qid=... and reduce the call to {{CiteQ|14405740}} or something if the #invoke is wrapped in a template. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The second wish is for {{#invoke:Cite|sfn|qid=Q14405740}}, to generate reference in form similar to produced by en:Template:Sfn. This shall be easy as the Qid might be used as automatic unique internal anchor identifier. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! Here is your wish 1: Template:CiteQ.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Updates as part of documentation overhaul[edit]

Hi all,

I recently made substantial edits to Help:Sources as part of a larger sitewide documentation overhaul (more info on this here).

To compare my edits with the previous version please see the diffs here

Major changes include the following:

  • provided more introductory content on what sources do/are for
  • added examples of when sources are not required; also added more examples to other methods/types of sourcing (now each type has its own example)
  • added new types of sources (policy, legislation)
  • integrated examples of sources with step-by-step instructions on adding them
  • explained more about how to determine whether a database property exists in Wikidata already or not
  • explained more about the two ways of handling web pages as sources (i.e. when a webpage item exists and when one doesn't)
  • minimized/reduced discussion of future/anticipated processes or features (e.g. monolingual data type property)
  • removed some of the 'optional' qualifiers suggested for adding work items
  • moved around content in an attempt to redesign page so it more closely matches the format of other Help pages
  • added a screenshot

Please let me know if you have any concerns about these changes or suggestions on further improving the documentation. If you see something wrong (like a typo) or something that could be easily improved upon (like an example, confusing wording, or a label for a screenshot), please just go ahead and fix it - no need to comment here first!

Here are issues I would also like specific feedback on:

  • is the distinction between "sources" and "references" useful? should we just eliminate it and use only one of the terms?
  • do the web pages examples make sense and are they accurate? Specifically, is the example of United States Population Clock (Q3398022) correct in terms of how we should treat web pages that already have items in Wikidata?
  • are there too few screenshots? What else should be in there?
  • should there be more info on adding/creating properties for databases or general information on this process?

Thanks. -Thepwnco (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thepwnco: WRONG: you never use a book item in the reference section but only the edition of a book. A book item is used only in the book's edition item.
source section -> book's edition -> book.
That's why the term work is better than book. The book is more the hardcopy and what we need is an item for the work. The only question is do we need two item for a "book" with only one edition ? We have to treat that, but definitively don't use the "book" item in any reference/source section. Snipre (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre:, I am also in favor of dropping "book" and using "work" or "creative work". We should consider items that represent both an edition and the work. It is already happening, so better to tag them appropriately. In any case it is something that should be discussed more broadly.--Micru (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre, Micru: Hi both, thanks for your comments and for bringing attention to my mistake. I've since reverted mentions of 'book item' back to 'work item' and expanded the section to include a bit more info on the distinction between work items and edition items - my apologies for not getting this right the first time around. Please let me know if there's anything still troubling or problematic about this section. Cheers. -Thepwnco (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The first look at the page simply made me turn away. It is probably the best example of all help pages on how to turn down beginners. It already starts in the introduction: "Within a reference statement, however, the data value is always a source" - pardon? In general, the amount of content is just too overwhelming. I think the step-by-step procedures make sense since these try to ensure consistency, but the page should be more dynamic, hiding most of the content initially. Maybe, the page should behave more like a questionnaire: The user selects the type of source he intends to add and is presented the necessary steps. I would not move the content to individual pages but have some mechanism to expand/collapse the individual steps. A question that struck my mind (partially off the actual content): Imagining queries... How would one know if something has no reference because it is regarded common knowledge? In my opinion, there needs to be a flagging mechanism marking statements common knowledge - but that is something technical. Random knowledge donator (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Thepwnco: We need a section to indicate how to create an item for author. But this is not specific to the source definition but for any person. Do you plan to define a section for that or to link to a specific page ? Snipre (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre: Thanks for the suggestion. Personally I don't think that creating an item for an author (or any person, generally speaking) is complicated enough to merit its own documentation or section on this page. Given other comments here that suggest the Sources page already has enough content as it is, I'm also reluctant to add even more about secondary items of interest. Could you please explain what essential information would or should be included about creating an author item? Would just a link to how to create an item and mention of the need to create items for authors be enough? Thanks. -Thepwnco (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

described by source (P1343)[edit]

The usage of described by source (P1343) is unclear. Imho this property can be used for references like:

I left a note at the talk page: Property talk:P1343#Usage. --Kolja21 (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but it should be section, verse, or paragraph (P958) instead of (OBSOLETE) title (use P1476, "title") (P357) since the second is for titles of a whole work. I have added some aliases to p958 to make it more easy to find when typing "title" or "entry". The problem is that sometimes p1343 is also used with online encyclopaedias, which might be problematic, specially considering that we already have Reference URL.--Micru (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I've corrected the example given in Property talk:P1343. Thanx for your feedback. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Error in "Scientific, newspaper or magazine article" section?[edit]

AFAIK DOI (P356) and volume (P478) should be in article item, not publication item. Is correct? [15:10, 6. Aug. 2014‎ Sbisolo]

I think it depends. Articles for sure have volume (P478), the publication item can have p478 or not. A journal may be published for over 100 years, but Festschrift (Q933348) has for sure a clearly defined year of publication. Concerning p356 im not sure how it is used. But if there is an identifier you can connect without any doubt to an item it is ok to use it.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
If an article surely has volume (P478), why not add this property to article item? DOI (P356) can identify a journal, an individual issue of a journal, an individual article in the journal, or a single table in that article. This property can be added both article and publication (when available). --Sbisolo (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData[edit]

Interested in Sources and the future of Wikidata? See WikiProject Source MetaData - Mattsenate (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Section about edition item[edit]

The correspondig sction reads like this: When sourcing statements, you should only ever use the edition item of a book. In some cases, it will be necessary to first add the work item to Wikidata in order to create an edition item. You can do so by following the steps below:

Check if the work item already exists in Wikidata. If an item is found, proceed to step 4. If the item is not found, create a new one for it and go to step 2. Add at least the following statements to the work item:

there also should be a property for the "year of origin" or "year of first publication", or should we use inception (P571) - this, to me, would rather be the date the author finished the work, even if never published.
perhaps the indication for PD should be applied here, as it is applied to the work, not the edition :) - but perhaps it is a little to early to speak about legal matters ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, Work items should not use Q 571 (book), but work (Q386724) instead. Prince Hamlet is a creative work, not a book (in fact it is a play, published in a book). Book is a suitable property for Book of Kells (Q204221), an item about a physical book you can touch. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Giftzwerg 88: That is true, and I would like to make the change. Pinging @Kolja21: to see if he has any concern left after the last discussions that happened on this talk.--Micru (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
work (Q386724) has a colorful variety of labels like "creative work" (en), "artistic work" (de) or "GND-C" (no idea what that means). These definitions will exclude some books and include many other things like paintings and compositions. Of cause we can add "creative/artistic", or "work" in general to every book item. But please keep in mind that we are talking about Help:Sources. So the main question will remain: What property should be used for books? Or should we give up books and only keep journals? A general property will undermine maintenances work. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
However we must keep work items seperately from edition items. Anyone can clearly understand that some works may exist as books but also as electronic files or as voice recordings (as speeches). Some works of ancient authors don´t even exist any longer as a phsyical copy and we just have reports about the work or some scattered quotations as of Hortensius (Q1630211). So Hortensius is a work, not a book. According to Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Q16388) we must discern between between creative works, editions and a special copy of an edition. Sometimes a book includes several works in one volume. Some works like encyclopedia (Q5292) come in several volumes. In rare cases however some works exist only in one copy and therefore the item for work, edition and copy can be the same, in this case instance of (P31) a book, instance of (P31) a scroll or whatever kind of physical remains exist. If you are not happy with work (Q386724), we just have to find something that resembles the point more clearly.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kolja21, Giftzwerg 88: It took me a while but I have separated work (Q386724) from creative work (Q17537576), and I have been cleaning the work tree. Now we also have a distinct manifestation tree. I hope it helps to make things more clear. There is still many tasks left to do because sometimes we have items representing both a genre and a type of work, when there should be two separate items. Some other times a "combines" property would be useful, for instance a dance work combines a musical work and a performance work.
Perhaps the most confusing is that expression and manifestation are very closely related, but in general it is more like a gradient than as 4 clear-cut levels. Thanks to this model I have very clear now that on one extreme one can imagine the pure physical world, on the other pure information world, and in between one can describe how information takes shape as matter and how matter takes shape as information.
The "group of entities" tree is also interesting. But I am missing some properties like the the proposed "has quality" property to say "<group of entities> has quality <group>"--Micru (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Micru: Thanks for the clarification. I know it's a difficult case. Choose for "books" whatever you think will fit best and we give it a try. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed update works-editions[edit]

A reminder of w:FRBR levels with our correspondence:

  • work (work item): a distinct intellectual or creative work
  • expression (edition item): a version of that work
  • manifestation (edition item): the group of physical objects that carry the information considered the same version
  • item (commons file): one exemplar

Proposed update for sourcing information.

Indeed, but I must say, I have some difficulty between work (Q386724) : distinct intellectual or artistic creation and creative work (Q17537576) : distinct artistic creation such as artwork, literature, music, and paintings :(-- Hsarrazin (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, there is no clear boundary as for when a work is "creative" or not, but there are some works that do require a high degree of creativity, like in all artistic fields. Is a "scientific paper" creative? Maybe, but it is mainly meant to be methodical. Or is a list of names considered creative? I hope not :)--Micru (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The question which actual work item to use is secondary. In doubt, I'd just use work (Q386724) and let other people refine. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For edition items: use "instance of:edition" (meaning "work version", represents the expression part) and optionally any subitem of the manifestation tree to represent the manifestation part.

In some cases it is necessary to separate the manifestation from the expression, for that we will need a new property (see property proposal: manifestation of). Note that all items are approximations and there is no perfect way of doing it, just a general way of getting closer to reality. By having a "roadmap", we can make an item develop in any necessary way, sometimes putting more emphasis modelling the work level, other times it might be more relevant to model thoroughly the manifestation level.

When there are aggregations/groups/collections of works, use any subitem of group of works. For aggregations/groups/collections of manifestations use any subitem of group of manifestation. Note that language is polysemous and that their meaning might be different depending on the context (for instance using "game" to refer to a "game work", a "game expression" or an instance of "game event"), but in our case we need to untangle that ambiguity, or at least offer a possible path to untangle it whenever necessary or relevant.

Here there is a table with a possible distribution of the properties. This is not a fixed structure, some properties might start in one item and be moved to the next as necessary (ISBN might be more suitable for the manifestation when such item exists). And sometimes there is no need to make a distinction, so the item can be modeled at just the expression-manifestation level (e.g. papers with no different versions), or at work level (wikipedia articles).

you seem to use manifestation for the description of scans of books, but those would just be items, each scan being from a different book (from different libraries), even if it's the same edition... is that right or is there something I don't understand ?
I changed it slightly to make more clear that "manifestation" is nothing material, just the "materialization", or said differently "how something abstract can be made some real object", the real object as you say is the "item" (a scan, a file, a book on your desk, etc).--Micru (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In a way, it is like cutting a river with a knife, there are no exact boundaries about how and where to cut. Anyhow, does this update sounds reasonable? Any comment? Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Maximilianklein (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Filceolaire (talk)
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Vlsergey (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Books John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Micru (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Periodicals--Micru (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that very important work that will, I hope, help understanding of what we try to do here :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The good thing is that these concepts can be used in every field without much effort (I hope) :)--Micru (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Please don't stick to the rather theoretical FRBR terminology, it has been discussed with much confusion and little practical outcome since 1998. In particular, "expression" and "manifestation" are not applicable without pain. Let's start with works as suggested above. Some works are unique (e.g. Mona Lisa (Q12418)) and some are available only in different forms, versions, variants, and editions (e.g. particular editions of a book). Implementation of edition is discussed at Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/References_and_sources#How_to_store_edition_data. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@JakobVoss: I am aware of the difficulties when modelling items, as explained in the essay linked below. The only change is that before we were supposed to use "book" for everything (which is a mix of matter and information), and now it is "work" (purely information, abstract) or any sub-item, which makes more sense and it has application for more fields without constraint. As you say there are many ways to develop an item, it is just a matter of providing a clear path without too many rules or terminology.--Micru (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Micru, JakobVoss: Next construction site, after a decision is made about the work level, is the property "distribution". Since it was originally made for video games and software it's usage for (printed) books, e-books, and audiobooks has to be specified, see Property talk:P437#Usage note. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kolja21: "Distribution" and "manifestation" are very tied together. I see the property "distribution" as a way of merging both what FRBR calls "expression" and "manifestation" into what we call "edition". I see no problem with using it for all domains, but perhaps a more specific label (or alias) would help, something like "physical format".--Micru (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Micru: Your proposition of changing the use of book is a good idea but your proposition of using a tree which is changing every day isn't in favour of the first proposition. If we want to go to a more accurate classification ok but we need to have a description of this new classification covering the same domain of the first use of "book". Can creative work be more clear than book ? I prefer a not perfect classification but simple than a more accurate but not defined classification. We need to fix thing, with a possible development, but by changing now we have to know the new classification scheme. Snipre (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre: By using a tree we give the chance to get closer to whatever users enter as "instance of" and still give results no matter if they look for "literary works", "poems" or "creative works". If we use only "creative work" or "work", then there is the need to add a further property for the type of work, which coincidentally is always a subproperty of "work". That the tree of works changes all the time is a good thing, what exactly are you afraid of?--Micru (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
While this scheme seems logical, it does not help much when linking pages from different languages on Wikisource. Currently, we link translations with the original work, and that is useful. How do you intend to do that with WikiData? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: You can use either "based on" or "follows". Their meanings are different when used on a work, than when used on an edition.--Micru (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Micru: Do you have an example? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


Please don't discuss, argue and propose without concrete examples. For instance Quran (Q428) is a work (Q386724) (via several subclasses) and The Koran Interpreted (Q7744922) is a translation of Quran (Q428) -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JakobVoss: Done. You also have a nice example here: The Diary of a Young Girl (Q6911). I also have written an essay which aims to bring understanding to the problem of modeling reality: Growing items. I hope it helps! --Micru (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

New template for citing sources[edit]

I have created Template:Cite item. It works like this {{Cite item|item number}} (or {{Cite item|item number|page=page number|lang=lang used for formatting}}. It is not complete yet, but that might already be useful. Note that it only works if the data are provided in the item provided. For example, if the item is about an edition, but the author's name is only in the item about the work, not the edition, the module does not follow the link provided in edition or translation of (P629). If this is needed, it would be relatively easy to implement. However, it may be good practice to provide all data in the item about the work, as it would also make the data easier to use by external users.

Note that Module:Cite/sandbox is also used Module:Wikidata. When the 'showsource' parameter is set to true, the source provided in stated in (P248) is shown. There are examples in the documentation page. --Zolo (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looks like there is still much work to do. "Pages" is translated with "Schutzstaffel" (SS) and I have no idea why the example Jamot and Wildenstein, Manet, catalogue critique, 1st edition (Q15619449) produces script errors. BTW: I've seen you've started a week ago Template:Cite book. Do you want to use it too? --Kolja21 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, I was pretty sure I had seen "SS" as a plural for Seiten in German bibliographies :\.
I was originally planning to add an "item" option to {{Cite book}} but then I realized that, for the beginning at least, it was easier to start with something new, and also that the book/article/.. distinction should be done automatically by the software. Cite book should be usable as a standard Template:Cite book (Q92570) though.--Zolo (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

source - imported from xxwiki[edit]

I do agree with the text at "Different types of sources" about "sourcing" from wikis, but in some cases of wiki-related statements it is acceptable and even desirable. Typical example is instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) or Wikimedia category (Q4167836). Could I (or someone else) modify the text to reflect this? --Jklamo (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Jklamo No, you can use the URL property to link to the page describing this kind of syntax in WP:en for example. Snipre (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing from books in Wikidata[edit]

Here's a notion:

  • Currently, it's frustrating to try to add a citation to a book to a Wikidata item, because often not only are the work (Q386724) and edition (Q3331189) not yet created, but often we also need to add the person items for the author/editor(s) and the organization item for the publisher.
  • A wizard to add references is on the Roadmap, but is some way away.

Proposed short-term solution:

  1. Add a new property reference ISBN with qualifiers page number start and page number end.
  2. Reference ISBN would be an external link (similar to
  3. A bot could check the all reference ISBNs for a matching edition in Wikidata, and if one exists, replace the "reference ISBN" link with a "stated in [item]" link.

This would allow users to add references to statements quickly without interrupting their workflow, and over time, as more books are added, these links would be self-correcting via the bot. It would also supply an immediately verifiable source via the external link.

Would this work? - PKM (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

PKM Already requested see here. But this needs programmer, and we need the authorization of the database to import data using bots. Snipre (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that an ISBN can be used for multiple editions. An ISBN without the number of edition is ambiguous. As a first step we should import the books linked to en:Template:BibISBN. This would establish a basic library catalog in WD. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Great idea, but related question Scott_WUaS (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC): Scott_WUaS: in anticipating books' ISBNs written in all 7,870 languages (e.g. in Glottolog - ), what might Wikidata also need to plan for?


Hello. When I get an article in Google Academics and want to use it as reference, how can I do it? I tried "site", "article", "pdf", but none of these worked.--MisterSanderson (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You have to use the existing properties not the properties you want. There is a list of properties specific to articles under Help:Sources#Scientific, newspaper or magazine article. Snipre (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
So I need to create an article on Wikipedia for each pdf? This is absurd. They aren't this notorious.--MisterSanderson (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No, to create an item in WD you don't need to have an article in WP. See Wikidata:Notability: "3.It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful." Reference hepls to increase the data quality. Just be careful to use high quality articles from peer-viewed journals and if possible articles which can be used to sources others statements. Snipre (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to evaluate the quality of an article, I just take them from university sites using Google Scholar. But, so I need to create items for each article that I use as reference? It's not possible to just link the external address?--MisterSanderson (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If you don't provide the full description of the reference how do you want to display the source in WP when your value will be used ? Then URLs change quite easily so yes you can source with only a URL but this adding will be useless from display point of view. Snipre (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@MisterSanderson -- I suggest using Zotero; if you have a DOI or ISSN, or a machine-readable PDF, or the original webpage (if it's decently designed, like an institutional repository, a publisher's webpage, etc.), Zotero will automatically generate a reference, and export it formatted as a Wikipedia Citation Template. This is being integrated into VisualEditor by User:Mvolz. Automated export to Wikidata should also be possible -- anyone know about this? I wrote Wikipedia:Bot requests#DOI bot. HLHJ (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:HLHJ You can't use citation templates to create references on wikidata, sadly. It all has to be done manually by creating the item in wikidata. Mvolz (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Too much work to add a simple single reference. I give up, don't want to add them anymore.--MisterSanderson (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MisterSanderson It's acceptable to just add the link to the google scholar page instead of creating an item for the journal article. The property you are looking for when adding the references is 'reference url', and then just add the link to the website where the article is. I agree that creating an entire item just to use as a reference is a lot of work! Mvolz (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Requesting a bot. [7] HLHJ (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Scientific articles : labels (probably) should be author-date[edit]

Help:Label states that “the label is the most common name that the item would be known by.” But scientists never refer to articles by their titles, they do it primarily by their authors and publication date, in combination with the name of the journal where the article is published and/or the themes of the contents. This is true even for exceptionally public-oriented pieces such as The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved (Q15545344). Scientific article titles are not intended to be used for reference.

Plainly speaking, the current practice is not conventional, and arguably not functional.

Tinm (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)