Create a third item in Wikidata, and use that for the language links. Any Wikipedia that has two separate articles can link to the separate items, any Wikipedia that has only one article can link to the single item. On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jo <winfixit(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The composite item seems to be a sort of composite geographical/human system, like an ecosystem (community of living organisms together with the nonliving components of their environment) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q37813 a special kind of ecosystem maybe ... 2014-09-09 11:33 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler(a)wikimedia.de>de>:

On 09.09.2014 11:33, Daniel Kinzler wrote: Before the "how?" should come the "why?". The modelling should be chosen so that it best suits a given purpose (the purpose is the benchmark for deciding if a particular modelling approach is "good" or not). I guess the main thing we want to achieve here is to link the combined item to and from the single items. If this is true, then the "how?" question is basically a "which property to use?" question. For this we should look more closely at the nature of the combined item. Let's distinguish "combined items" that are natural and meaningful concepts from those that are just different topics combined for editorial reasons in one article. The first kind of item involves things like bands (who have members, possibly with individual articles, but which are still meaningful concepts by themselves). The second kind of item involves the Wangerooge hybrid, but also many other things (e.g., plane crashes and the planes themselves; or people and events the people where involved in). The problem with these second type of complex item is that it does not give you a good basis for adding data (you can't say properly which aspects of the thing you are talking about). It is also problematic since these things are not natural concepts that can be considered to have certain "joint properties". Rather, they are a kind of editorial trick to organise information in Wikipedia articles. For this reason, I would suggest to have a property for making links in this case that clearly refers to Wikipedia. Like "is a list of" or the item for "Wikipedia disambiguation page". I would avoid using properties that are normally used with real concepts, such as "has part" (which would make sense for "bands" -> "band member", but not for "Wangerooge hybrid" -> "Wangerooge island" (it's not a part since the former is not a proper concept to start with). With such a editorial property, one could then also create items for parts that don't have Wikipedia article so as to be able to add data that would be confusing/wrong in the combined item. Markus

Am 09.09.2014 13:36, schrieb Markus Krötzsch: Thanks Markus, I like that a lot :) -- daniel -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

The language links should then go to either the composite item, or the specitic item, if only one exits for a language. What, if there are both? If the page itself is specific, choose specific one, else use the composite one. That may intrduce some foggyness because links are unequal and you don#t know beforehand to which class the taget belngs, but in the end we should be as precise as we can get and having as many generally usaeful links as possible would benefot users most, imho. Purodha   "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax(a)gmail.com> writes: Dear all, A notable side effect :  At the moment, a page can contain multiple topic in few languages onlyAt the moment, those page are "adopted" by one of the topic  It means that from now on, some pages that contains multiple topics in some languages will be attached to new Q** and it will appear in the language bar as if there is no equivalent in those languages  We should probably think about the long story too  Mohamed   On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:Am 09.09.2014 13:36, schrieb Markus Krötzsch: Thanks Markus, I like that a lot :) -- daniel -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.   _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr[http://www.innovimax.fr] RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l[https://lists.wikim…

While on this concept of modelling Wikidata items for multi-concept Wikipedia pages, I would like to remind you of another case, in which cross-project spam is deleted in only a subset of language Wikipedias, leaving a few links or just the Wikidata item. I would like there to be some trace of the previously existing Wikipedia links, that each link to the deletion discussion in the associated Wikipedia. Is this possible? On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Markus Krötzsch < markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; wrote:

Can we make do without annotation statements like "instance of: Wikipedia page with multiple topics"? In my opinion, such statements would unnecessarily clutter a significant portion of our items and would be better inferred by the presence of *subject of* (P805) claims. I think it's better to reserve *instance of* for talk about the essence of the subject itself. The closest inverse property for* subject of* is probably *facet of* (P1269). Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_Clipper See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7409943 for an initial pass at modelling that. Note how that Wikipedia page says "The aircraft developed an engine problem (caused by an oil leak)", which ultimately caused the in-flight explosion. We currently have no generic way to model causes. Coincidentally enough, I just posted a detailed/long-winded proposal to address that. Please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P828#A_better_way_to_model_caus… and give any feedback there! Cheers, Eric On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Markus Krötzsch < markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; wrote: > My proposal became more clear to me over lunch: > The main proposal here is to treat these things like Wikipedia > disambiguation pages: we have items, but the items are mainly about the > page, not about any real-world concept we care about. > > Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_Clipper > > It says "Samoan Clipper was one of ten Pan American Airways Sikorsky S-42 > flying boats" but it includes an infobox that lists "fatalities". So the > article describes both a specific airplane (the flying boat) and an event > (crash of that plane). We should not try to invent a new concept of > "machine-event system" to capture this, but have two items for the two > things we have here. > > We will have many cases where this is not necessary if we can find a > natural "composite concept" that it makes sense to talk about. In these > case, we will use different properties for the links (for example, a > country article may sometimes be used to describe all the federal states of > that country, yet we have a good way of linking individual state items to > the country). As usual, there will be corner cases where it is not clear > what to do; then we need specific discussions on these cases. > > Cheers, > > Markus > > > > On 09.09.2014 11:57, Markus Krötzsch wrote: > >> On 09.09.2014 11:33, Daniel Kinzler wrote: >> >>> Am 09.09.2014 01:40, schrieb Denny Vrandečić: >>> >>>> Create a third item in Wikidata, and use that for the language links. >>>> Any >>>> Wikipedia that has two separate articles can link to the separate >>>> items, any >>>> Wikipedia that has only one article can link to the single item. >>>> >>> >>> That's a nice solution for the language link problem, but modelling the >>> relationship of these three items on wikidata is kind of >>> annoying/tricky. How >>> would you do that? >>> >> >> Before the "how?" should come the "why?". The modelling should be chosen >> so that it best suits a given purpose (the purpose is the benchmark for >> deciding if a particular modelling approach is "good" or not). I guess >> the main thing we want to achieve here is to link the combined item to >> and from the single items. If this is true, then the "how?" question is >> basically a "which property to use?" question. >> >> For this we should look more closely at the nature of the combined item. >> Let's distinguish "combined items" that are natural and meaningful >> concepts from those that are just different topics combined for >> editorial reasons in one article. The first kind of item involves things >> like bands (who have members, possibly with individual articles, but >> which are still meaningful concepts by themselves). The second kind of >> item involves the Wangerooge hybrid, but also many other things (e.g., >> plane crashes and the planes themselves; or people and events the people >> where involved in). >> >> The problem with these second type of complex item is that it does not >> give you a good basis for adding data (you can't say properly which >> aspects of the thing you are talking about). It is also problematic >> since these things are not natural concepts that can be considered to >> have certain "joint properties". Rather, they are a kind of editorial >> trick to organise information in Wikipedia articles. For this reason, I >> would suggest to have a property for making links in this case that >> clearly refers to Wikipedia. Like "is a list of" or the item for >> "Wikipedia disambiguation page". I would avoid using properties that are >> normally used with real concepts, such as "has part" (which would make >> sense for "bands" -> "band member", but not for "Wangerooge hybrid" -> >> "Wangerooge island" (it's not a part since the former is not a proper >> concept to start with). >> >> With such a editorial property, one could then also create items for >> parts that don't have Wikipedia article so as to be able to add data >> that would be confusing/wrong in the combined item. >> >> Markus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >

What are the implications of this for sidebar links ? IMO it's a good thing if the wikidata items become more fine-grained and more conceptually precise. But wouldn't this mean we would be losing (some) sidebar links, so people wouldn't necessarily know any more that some of the information they're reading might be available in a language they might prefer. A classic case is where some wikis have separate "concept" and "list" articles for a thing, whereas others have "list with concept" articles. This often gives rise to disputes as to what should be interwiki'd to what. (OT: should a "list with concept"-style item ever be acceptable as a target of P301 'category's main topic' ?) So: should the sidebar of the wiki page in a language that has a separate article for the concept also include a new section "related article" that could eg present "list with concept" articles from languages with no direct concept <-> concept equivalents. Similarly one wiki might include an article on an individual artist; but in other languages the best information on that artist might be presented in an article on the family of the artist; or a small tight-knit group of related artists. Would a mechanism that could offer such articles from languages where there was no direct equivalence be worth considering, if we start plumbing in properties like "has topic" ? -- James. On 09/09/2014 12:36, Markus Krötzsch wrote: