Hi everyone,
At Wikimania we had several discussions about the future of Wikidata and Commons. Some broader feedback would be nice. Now we have a property "Commons category" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P373). This is a string and an intermediate solution. In the long run Commons should probably be a wikibase instance in it's own right (structured metadata stored at Commons) integrated with Wikidata.org, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commons for more info. In the meantime we should make Commons a wikidata client like Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. How would that work?
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9920 for the city Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia article "Haarlem" and the Wikivoyage article "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons gallery "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Haarlem)
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7427769 for the category Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia category "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons category "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haarlem).
The category item (Q7427769) links to article item (Q9920) using the property "main category topic" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P301). We would need to make an inverse property of P301 to make the backlink.
Some reasons why this is helpful: * Wikidata takes care of a lot of things like page moves, deletions, etc. Now with P373 (Commons category) it's all manual * Having Wikidata on Commons means that you can automatically get backlinks to Wikipedia, have intro's for category, etc etc * It's a step in the right direction. It makes it easier to do next steps
Small change, lot's of benefits!
Maarten
Hmm, I am not quite sure how to see this. Places and people yes: It would be nice to have the geo coordinates on Wikidata and for the artist and writers it would be nice to have the creator templates on Wikidata as well. I also agree for the book and the artwork templates. But how could you possibly move all of the Commons copyright logic? As far as I know, it's really quite a small group of people who even understand how all that stuff works on Commons and can untangle those template categories and delete/keep workflows... if you open Wikidata to keeping the data on copyrighted materials, like books and artworks, is that metadata OK to move and manage there?
2013/8/10, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2013/8/10 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Small change, lot's of benefits!
Strong +1
C
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, There is a lot of data that already fits perfectly well in Wikidata.
There is one thing that should become absolutely clear. Wikidata is a project in its own right and Wikipedia is only linked through its interwiki links. The relevance is that there will be an increasing number of Wikidata items with no link at all to Wikipedia.
Thanks, Gerard
On 11 August 2013 09:36, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, I am not quite sure how to see this. Places and people yes: It would be nice to have the geo coordinates on Wikidata and for the artist and writers it would be nice to have the creator templates on Wikidata as well. I also agree for the book and the artwork templates. But how could you possibly move all of the Commons copyright logic? As far as I know, it's really quite a small group of people who even understand how all that stuff works on Commons and can untangle those template categories and delete/keep workflows... if you open Wikidata to keeping the data on copyrighted materials, like books and artworks, is that metadata OK to move and manage there?
2013/8/10, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2013/8/10 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Small change, lot's of benefits!
Strong +1
C
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Well I am a bit behind on my email, but I thought the idea was that empty templates like the Commons creator template could be plopped onto a Commons category or gallery page and these would get auto-filled on click/open by "sucking" their data from Wikidata.
2013/8/11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, There is a lot of data that already fits perfectly well in Wikidata.
There is one thing that should become absolutely clear. Wikidata is a project in its own right and Wikipedia is only linked through its interwiki links. The relevance is that there will be an increasing number of Wikidata items with no link at all to Wikipedia.
Thanks, Gerard
On 11 August 2013 09:36, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, I am not quite sure how to see this. Places and people yes: It would be nice to have the geo coordinates on Wikidata and for the artist and writers it would be nice to have the creator templates on Wikidata as well. I also agree for the book and the artwork templates. But how could you possibly move all of the Commons copyright logic? As far as I know, it's really quite a small group of people who even understand how all that stuff works on Commons and can untangle those template categories and delete/keep workflows... if you open Wikidata to keeping the data on copyrighted materials, like books and artworks, is that metadata OK to move and manage there?
2013/8/10, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2013/8/10 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Small change, lot's of benefits!
Strong +1
C
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
2013/8/11 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm, I am not quite sure how to see this. Places and people yes: It would be nice to have the geo coordinates on Wikidata and for the artist and writers
I am not sure I get what geocoordinates means for people.
I also agree for the book and the artwork templates. But how could you possibly move all of the Commons copyright logic? As far as I know, it's really quite a small group of people who even understand how all that stuff works on Commons and can untangle those template categories and delete/keep workflows... if you open Wikidata to keeping the data on copyrighted materials, like books and artworks, is that metadata OK to move and manage there?
I think this was not the sense of Maarten's proposal.
Cristian
geocoordinates can be linked to places; creator templates, book templates, and artwork templates can all be linked to people.
The problem is if you store the data on WikiData, but do not allow the content to show up on WikiCommons (due to copyright problems), then where does data-curation take place?
After I sent that email it occurred to me though that probably most, if not all the people on Commons who understand this stuff are already Wikidatans anyway. So maybe it's a moot point.
2013/8/12, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2013/8/11 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm, I am not quite sure how to see this. Places and people yes: It would be nice to have the geo coordinates on Wikidata and for the artist and writers
I am not sure I get what geocoordinates means for people.
I also agree for the book and the artwork templates. But how could you possibly move all of the Commons copyright logic? As far as I know, it's really quite a small group of people who even understand how all that stuff works on Commons and can untangle those template categories and delete/keep workflows... if you open Wikidata to keeping the data on copyrighted materials, like books and artworks, is that metadata OK to move and manage there?
I think this was not the sense of Maarten's proposal.
Cristian
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hi Jane,
You completely missed my point. This is about galleries and categories, not about creator, institution, etc etc. That's all next phase. Please reread my original post.
Maarten
Op 12-8-2013 20:32, Jane Darnell schreef:
geocoordinates can be linked to places; creator templates, book templates, and artwork templates can all be linked to people.
The problem is if you store the data on WikiData, but do not allow the content to show up on WikiCommons (due to copyright problems), then where does data-curation take place?
After I sent that email it occurred to me though that probably most, if not all the people on Commons who understand this stuff are already Wikidatans anyway. So maybe it's a moot point.
2013/8/12, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2013/8/11 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm, I am not quite sure how to see this. Places and people yes: It would be nice to have the geo coordinates on Wikidata and for the artist and writers
I am not sure I get what geocoordinates means for people.
I also agree for the book and the artwork templates. But how could you possibly move all of the Commons copyright logic? As far as I know, it's really quite a small group of people who even understand how all that stuff works on Commons and can untangle those template categories and delete/keep workflows... if you open Wikidata to keeping the data on copyrighted materials, like books and artworks, is that metadata OK to move and manage there?
I think this was not the sense of Maarten's proposal.
Cristian
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi,
As far as I am concerned, the categories used for images are not really helpful , While there are many images about Kiribati, you find only a few in the category by that name. The rest can be found in subcategories.
In the proposal for Commons there is a provision for tags. These tags can be populated to some extend by the categories they are in.
The reason to have categories is because they are intended to help find images. Without them and without tags we would not have Commons as a functioning entity. However, the way they work with all these subcategories and stuff prevent many people including myself to use Commons as the source of images when I need them.
So yes, having categories are good in a half arsed way but we should get rid of them as we can have something better.
One other big advantage of tags is that they are typically single concepts that have typically have translations either in the labels in Wikidata or in Wiktionary. This allows us to make Commons a truly multi-lingual resource. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 August 2013 06:19, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi everyone,
At Wikimania we had several discussions about the future of Wikidata and Commons. Some broader feedback would be nice. Now we have a property "Commons category" (https://www.wikidata.org/** wiki/Property:P373 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P373). This is a string and an intermediate solution. In the long run Commons should probably be a wikibase instance in it's own right (structured metadata stored at Commons) integrated with Wikidata.org, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commonshttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commonsfor more info. In the meantime we should make Commons a wikidata client like Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. How would that work?
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Q9920https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9920for the city Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia article "Haarlem" and the Wikivoyage article "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons gallery "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.**org/wiki/Haarlemhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Haarlem )
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Q7427769https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7427769for the category Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia category "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons category "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.* *org/wiki/Category:Haarlemhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haarlem ).
The category item (Q7427769) links to article item (Q9920) using the property "main category topic" (https://www.wikidata.org/** wiki/Property:P301 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P301). We would need to make an inverse property of P301 to make the backlink.
Some reasons why this is helpful:
- Wikidata takes care of a lot of things like page moves, deletions, etc.
Now with P373 (Commons category) it's all manual
- Having Wikidata on Commons means that you can automatically get
backlinks to Wikipedia, have intro's for category, etc etc
- It's a step in the right direction. It makes it easier to do next steps
Small change, lot's of benefits!
Maarten
______________________________**_________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikidata-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Maarten, thanks for that clarification! Gerard, I totally agree with you. Personally I was hoping for a way to use WikiData to find Commons images that was *not* through the gallery/category structures as we know them, for all the reasons Gerard has mentioned (in this and previous mails).
Now that I think about it, if you want to create a relationship where Wiki Commons is a client of WikiData, then I think this should be done for galleries only, not categories. Galleries can be easily split and/or merged, reside in more than one category, and offer a "best" selection of images of the subject, as well as offering a link to more images on Commons by clicking through to categories.
Jane
2013/8/13, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
As far as I am concerned, the categories used for images are not really helpful , While there are many images about Kiribati, you find only a few in the category by that name. The rest can be found in subcategories.
In the proposal for Commons there is a provision for tags. These tags can be populated to some extend by the categories they are in.
The reason to have categories is because they are intended to help find images. Without them and without tags we would not have Commons as a functioning entity. However, the way they work with all these subcategories and stuff prevent many people including myself to use Commons as the source of images when I need them.
So yes, having categories are good in a half arsed way but we should get rid of them as we can have something better.
One other big advantage of tags is that they are typically single concepts that have typically have translations either in the labels in Wikidata or in Wiktionary. This allows us to make Commons a truly multi-lingual resource. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 August 2013 06:19, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi everyone,
At Wikimania we had several discussions about the future of Wikidata and Commons. Some broader feedback would be nice. Now we have a property "Commons category" (https://www.wikidata.org/** wiki/Property:P373 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P373). This is a string and an intermediate solution. In the long run Commons should probably be a wikibase instance in it's own right (structured metadata stored at Commons) integrated with Wikidata.org, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commonshttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commonsfor more info. In the meantime we should make Commons a wikidata client like Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. How would that work?
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Q9920https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9920for the city Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia article "Haarlem" and the Wikivoyage article "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons gallery "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.**org/wiki/Haarlemhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Haarlem )
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Q7427769https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7427769for the category Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia category "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons category "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.* *org/wiki/Category:Haarlemhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haarlem ).
The category item (Q7427769) links to article item (Q9920) using the property "main category topic" (https://www.wikidata.org/** wiki/Property:P301 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P301). We would need to make an inverse property of P301 to make the backlink.
Some reasons why this is helpful:
- Wikidata takes care of a lot of things like page moves, deletions, etc.
Now with P373 (Commons category) it's all manual
- Having Wikidata on Commons means that you can automatically get
backlinks to Wikipedia, have intro's for category, etc etc
- It's a step in the right direction. It makes it easier to do next steps
Small change, lot's of benefits!
Maarten
______________________________**_________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikidata-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Jane Darnell, 13/08/2013 13:19:
Now that I think about it, if you want to create a relationship where Wiki Commons is a client of WikiData, then I think this should be done for galleries only, not categories. Galleries can be easily split and/or merged, reside in more than one category, and offer a "best" selection of images of the subject, as well as offering a link to more images on Commons by clicking through to categories
Wikidata is not a tool to force what you/we think the Right Thing. Interproject links between categories are in the (tens of) millions, hence we need better ways to manage them, not lectures to Wikimedia projects on why it's wrong to do all this. Thank you for the patience.
Nemo
Hoi, If anything Wikidata has replaced the interwiki links for both Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. Wikidata DOES allow links to images on Commons and Commons categories already. In Commons it is known where images are used.
There is no way in which it is wise to abandon all that.
Once Wikidata replaced the interwiki links, many things had to be re-arranged to accomodate the changed situation. When Wikidata is to be used in an optimal way it makes sense to have a plan on what functionality can be created with the new technology. With Wikidata it is for instance possible to have multilingual tags.
This is not to say that what has been done is wrong or what has been done was not worthwhile, it is to say let us move in a direction that will provide a much improved functionality. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 August 2013 14:50, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jane Darnell, 13/08/2013 13:19:
Now that I think about it, if you want to create a relationship where
Wiki Commons is a client of WikiData, then I think this should be done for galleries only, not categories. Galleries can be easily split and/or merged, reside in more than one category, and offer a "best" selection of images of the subject, as well as offering a link to more images on Commons by clicking through to categories
Wikidata is not a tool to force what you/we think the Right Thing. Interproject links between categories are in the (tens of) millions, hence we need better ways to manage them, not lectures to Wikimedia projects on why it's wrong to do all this. Thank you for the patience.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikidata-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Gerard Meijssen, 13/08/2013 15:58:
Hoi, If anything Wikidata has replaced the interwiki links for both Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. Wikidata DOES allow links to images on Commons and Commons categories already. In Commons it is known where images are used.
There is no way in which it is wise to abandon all that.
Once Wikidata replaced the interwiki links, many things had to be re-arranged to accomodate the changed situation.
Like?
When Wikidata is to be used in an optimal way it makes sense to have a plan on what functionality can be created with the new technology. With Wikidata it is for instance possible to have multilingual tags.
This is not to say that what has been done is wrong or what has been done was not worthwhile, it is to say let us move in a direction that will provide a much improved functionality.
Well said, but I have no idea how it relates to this discussion.
Nemo
Hi Maarten,
thanks. That's the best proposal I have seen so far in how to proceed with Phase 1 on Commons. I usually had pushed Commons support further to the back, but with this I think we would indeed create some real value with a small change. I will bounce Commons Phase 1 client support up on my list.
I guess we should disallow sitelinks to the File: namespace, in order to avoid people trying to add metadata about the media files themselves?
Cheers, Denny
2013/8/10 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
Hi everyone,
At Wikimania we had several discussions about the future of Wikidata and Commons. Some broader feedback would be nice. Now we have a property "Commons category" (https://www.wikidata.org/** wiki/Property:P373 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P373). This is a string and an intermediate solution. In the long run Commons should probably be a wikibase instance in it's own right (structured metadata stored at Commons) integrated with Wikidata.org, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commonshttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commonsfor more info. In the meantime we should make Commons a wikidata client like Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. How would that work?
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Q9920https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9920for the city Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia article "Haarlem" and the Wikivoyage article "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons gallery "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.**org/wiki/Haarlemhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Haarlem )
We have an item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/**Q7427769https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7427769for the category Haarlem. It links to the Wikipedia category "Haarlem". It should link to the Commons category "Haarlem" (https://commons.wikimedia.* *org/wiki/Category:Haarlemhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haarlem ).
The category item (Q7427769) links to article item (Q9920) using the property "main category topic" (https://www.wikidata.org/** wiki/Property:P301 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P301). We would need to make an inverse property of P301 to make the backlink.
Some reasons why this is helpful:
- Wikidata takes care of a lot of things like page moves, deletions, etc.
Now with P373 (Commons category) it's all manual
- Having Wikidata on Commons means that you can automatically get
backlinks to Wikipedia, have intro's for category, etc etc
- It's a step in the right direction. It makes it easier to do next steps
Small change, lot's of benefits!
Maarten
______________________________**_________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikidata-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Il giorno 22/ago/2013 16:09, "Denny Vrandečić" denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de ha scritto:
I guess we should disallow sitelinks to the File: namespace, in order to
avoid people trying to add metadata about the media files themselves?
+1 to this and +1 to Marten's proposal.
@Denny: is it possible to temporarily disallow sitelinks to certain namespaces for certain projects, in order to allow them when we've got a way to deal with them? This could be a trick to be used also with Wikisource's Index namespace, I think. (I was talking to an it.source admin several minutes ago, and he was asking me how we could speed things up for Wikisource too).
Luca "Sannita" Martinelli https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Luca Martinelli martinelliluca@gmail.com wrote:
@Denny: is it possible to temporarily disallow sitelinks to certain namespaces for certain projects, in order to allow them when we've got a way to deal with them? This could be a trick to be used also with Wikisource's Index namespace, I think. (I was talking to an it.source admin several minutes ago, and he was asking me how we could speed things up for Wikisource too).
We're currently trying to figure out how to best do this.
Cheers Lydia
Il giorno 22/ago/2013 18:34, "Lydia Pintscher" lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de ha scritto:
We're currently trying to figure out how to best do this.
Great, thank you all. :)
L.
@Luca: it would be great if you could take a look to this page: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikisource
Since the BookManagerv2 extension (coming soon) will be storing all metadata from any work (sourced or not) in the (new) "Book:" namespace, IMHO the best would be to link those pages to the edition items as outlined in the Books Task Force. For more info see: http://www.mollywhite.net/blog/?p=87 http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/08/22/wikidata-and-other-technical-bits-at-wik... http://tools.wmflabs.org/bookmanagerv2/wiki/Book:The_Interpretation_of_Dream... http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force
The only really needed namespaces would be Author and Book, that information could be transcluded to other pages.
Cheers, Micru
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Luca Martinelli martinelliluca@gmail.comwrote:
Il giorno 22/ago/2013 18:34, "Lydia Pintscher" < lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> ha scritto:
We're currently trying to figure out how to best do this.
Great, thank you all. :)
L.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Il giorno 22/ago/2013 19:28, "David Cuenca" dacuetu@gmail.com ha scritto:
Since the BookManagerv2 extension (coming soon) will be storing all
metadata from any work (sourced or not) in the (new) "Book:" namespace, IMHO the best would be to link those pages to the edition items as outlined in the Books Task Force. [...]
The only really needed namespaces would be Author and Book, that
information could be transcluded to other pages.
This is absolutely awesome and impressing. This simplifies things to the very core, since we won't need to link any other namespace than Author and Book. Great work.
I've been talking to Aubrey this afternoon about the possible inclusion of Wikisource on Wikidata, this discussion comes absolutely in handy. :)
Please, let me know if I can be of any help for passing the data to WD.
L.
I am not completely sure if there currently is such a thing. I guess we need to implement that first.
One suggestion was that AbuseFilter could do this, but there was concern raised that this may overload AbuseFilter, and a native implementation would be better.
We will need to figure this out. Input is appreciated.
Cheers, Denny
2013/8/22 Luca Martinelli martinelliluca@gmail.com
Il giorno 22/ago/2013 16:09, "Denny Vrandečić" < denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de> ha scritto:
I guess we should disallow sitelinks to the File: namespace, in order to
avoid people trying to add metadata about the media files themselves?
+1 to this and +1 to Marten's proposal.
@Denny: is it possible to temporarily disallow sitelinks to certain namespaces for certain projects, in order to allow them when we've got a way to deal with them? This could be a trick to be used also with Wikisource's Index namespace, I think. (I was talking to an it.source admin several minutes ago, and he was asking me how we could speed things up for Wikisource too).
Luca "Sannita" Martinelli https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l