Talk:Modelling/Events and activities

Adding number of affected content pages to data model guidelines?

Since there are many events (edit-a-thons, workshops, contests) that also have affected content pages, would it make sense to add that property to the data model for events? I added it to one of the events by WMNL (see Q24386), is that the right way to go about it? MichellevL (WMNL) (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Michelle. Glad to see you've started editing!!

How to model the number of affected content pages is described on Modelling/Content uploads and also on ../Resource types. As for Springclean your data workshop (Q24386) you done it almost right. We use linked data (Q22134) as qualifier instead of Structured Data on Commons (Q90).

The issue of updating the data model for events is something we will consider. Happy editing! -- Andreas Kettelhoit (WMSE) (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andreas thanks for the quick reply and the feedback! I have changed Structured Data on Commons (Q90) to linked data (Q22134). Also thank you for considering to update the data model for events. If it helps I can elaborate a bit more on the background of my request (there might be another/better solution):I am hoping/planning to start using metabase for metrics registration for our chapter (instead of our excel file :), and one of our metrics is affected content pages (not solely for content donations). I can imagine this is the case for more affiliates intending to start using metabase. MichellevL (WMNL) (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We (WMSE) have been modelling affected content pages longer than we've been modelling content donations (batch uploads), but the data model (I call it "data modelling tables") hasn't really kept up.

Here three examples of how we model affected content pages: The edit-a-thon Q24307, the small week long competition Q24348 and the batch upload Q23399. Note that the latter contains a few properties that the others lack. More happy editing 💻 -- Andreas Kettelhoit (WMSE) (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposing to use significant place (P7153) on events

I like how the place property is used on a high-level and makes it easy to query for everything happening in one city. But to add on to that, and perhaps find some more details, I suggest we should use significant place (P7153) to add more detailed information, like how Q24103 was at Nordic Museum (Q86). This may turn useful to find more on-the-ground information. Ainali (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ainali thank you for the idea, me and User:Andreas_Kettelhoit_(WMSE) have discussed it a little. You are making a good point. One thing we are unsure about is whether this may introduce an unneeded level of confusion about an organization's role in an event. If e.g. a museum is actually involved in organizing an event, it will be indicated with organizer (P14), and potentially also with significant place if the event took place in the museum space. But say if they only provide the space, without being a co-organizer (like renting out the space without caring about what's happening in it), could including it in significant place be confusing? Regards, --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That should be easy to not confuse, as buildings and organizations should not be conflated in a single item. Otherwise, you would end up with modeling where a building is organizing an event held in an organization. For example, you can have an event in Aula Magna, where the co-organizer is Stockholm University, but the other way around would obviously be wrong (and could be signaled by property constraints). Ainali (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Ainali We agree that ideally, we should make a distinction between organization and physical building. Realistically, that's not easy to do, considering the current practice on Wikidata (which many of our users will be familiar with). I know there's been many discussions on Wikidata about this, especially in the context of GLAM institutions. From my experience, there's only a small number of e.g. GLAM organizations with separate items for the organization and the building, like the National Museum.

We've been discussing this issue at WMSE but unfortunately this distinction would require Metabase users to do twice as much work, and linking to Wikidata using same as on Wikidata (P1) would be harder.

We also have to consider whether this additional level of detail would actually add any real value. Can you suggest any scenario where the information about the physical place on this level would be helpful?

(And about property constraints, we are also looking forward to them being introduced – it can be tracked here) Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not certain about the value, but for Q24103, organized by Wikimedia Sverige (Q9) at Nordic Museum (Q86) it might be interesting to remember it as a good place for annual general assemblies, and it may give other affiliates inspiration to seek similar venues in their own countries. Ainali (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Ainali: We at WMSE have now analyzed several options for a more granular way to show where a specific event took place. What we have decided on is the Metabase-specific property housed by organization (P93), which shows in which organization's premises a specific event was held.

Regarding the exact locations and buildings an organization is housed in, we believe that such information is better suited for Wikidata. Happy editing -- Andreas Kettelhoit (WMSE) (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That is a good solution that can bring the value I was thinking about. Thanks! Ainali (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)