Why not flip the question around and instead find a better predicate using the fantastic Wikidata Property Explorer <https://tools.wmflabs.org/prop-explorer/> and type in search tree for "award" and click the results in the tree ? I found these that are useful: https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P1027 https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P1411 Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aidan Hogan &lt;aidhog(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

FYI we have SPARQL Federation with Nobelprize.com see T200668<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668> [cid:3673ede4-ebd4-443c-8e45-e5b655f39ac7] T200668 Set up Nobel Data as federated search with Wikidata<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668> Feedback Hans Mehlin - Nobel Media AB. Kul! Wikidata är högt upp min min önskelista. Vet att jag har fullt upp med annat till mitten av oktober. Hoppas sedan få mandat att arbeta mer med våra datamängder. phabricator.wikimedia.org And a Listeria list that every night compare Wikidata <-> with Nobelprize.com https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Salgo60/ListeriaNobelData3 Regards Magnus Sälgö Stockholm, Sweden salgo60(a)msn.com ________________________________ From: Wikidata &lt;wikidata-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Peter Patel-Schneider &lt;pfpschneider(a)gmail.com&gt; Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 6:36 AM To: wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org &lt;wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata Indeed. Thanks for the example. I'll probably incorporate it in my talk at WikidataCon. As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards consensus for cases like these. The onus appears to me to be on whoever is entering the information to look for similar situations and model them all the same. (In this case it appears that a recent change to the Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize, actually reducing commonality.) But what can be done in the future? One way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group, and try to model them the same as other members of the group. Another way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are modeled the same way. I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to specify the relationship between the class or property and the other items that target it. So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for concepts in Cyc.) Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the famous Nobel Prizes. Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's Nobel Prize in Physics. Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics and Nobel Prizes itself. I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata. That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw at curating Wikidata information. But if you don't have this level of resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata. Peter F. Patel-Schneider On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead guilty /o\. I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not explained. Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; a écrit :

Peter, I see your recommendation as approaching to introduce better ways of applying Types or Schema across Wikidata Items. At the minimum, I think improving the interface for property suggestions WITH even sometimes value suggestions, where it makes sense for certain domains like Entertainment, Awards, Pop Culture, etc. This reminds me of the choice that Wikidata took NOT to apply Types or Schema and remain a flexible model (an different choice than Freebase to start with Types and Schema)...but Wikidata can layer both (Properties & Schema) with improvements on recommendations of Schema against Property/Values. Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:37 PM Peter Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider(a)gmail.com&gt; 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) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126 Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:46 AM Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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) Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: