Actually you got to have an item to make use of wikidata properties. I think we are making too much of a deal to get or not to get an item in Wikidata. An item just identify something, whether or not this something is important to knowledge or not.

2013/6/20 Jane Darnell <>
I don't see each file on Commons having its own WikiData item, but I
do think each subject of files should have their own item (and some,
but not all of them, may also have their own wikipedia pages). These
files on Commons could make use of properties on wikidata like "is
designed by", "is a copy of", "is an example of", "is the best image
of" or something like that. When the work is a sculpture or a garden
and there are many photos, it would be nice to promote one of them to
"best choice image" for some works, this way you can easily replace
photos across many Wikipedia's for some of the great pictures coming
in with efforts like "Wiki Loves Monuments".

Similarly, I don't think each poem or each book should have its own
WikiData item, but I think each first edition should have its own
item, and all other editions should be able to link to it, regardless
of translated versions and so on. I see WikiSource and WikiBooks as
the same in this respect.

2013/6/20, Martynas Jusevičius <>:
> You probably mean Linked Data?
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM, David Cuenca <> wrote:
>> While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from
>> sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it
>> should
>> have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views
>> because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are
>> high,
>> in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is
>> deployed to sister projects.
>> There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what
>> sister
>> projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than just
>> by
>> installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion between
>> the
>> need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that Wikidata
>> embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be approached
>> by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side of it.
>> Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for
>> each
>> bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are they
>> relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata was
>> initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses.
>> However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
>> It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a
>> central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population
>> data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that
>> requires it. For instance there could be a, a
>>, etc that would cater for the needs of each community,
>> that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become clear, and of
>> course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even Commons could
>> be
>> "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having different labels
>> representing the file name depending on the language version being
>> accessed.
>> Could be this the right direction to go?
>> Cheers,
>> Micru
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list

Wikidata-l mailing list