Hi Gerard,

The entity would probably be.... a Lexeme :-)
(yeah, I feel your pain also about merging and the loss of valuable data at times)

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for that. We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these awards deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other awards like the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in Wikidata.

Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest problem we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows !@#$% to delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has determined to be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content because their fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by the way, it just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item basis.

I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data. The most important part is that even though a merged item has a better quality, either perspective on an item was of value.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in Wikidata currently.

There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently.
Perhaps one should be created?

Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem.
(feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them)