Wikipedia article describes two or more different objects
The Wikipedia article about Heligoland describes the island and the municipality "Heligoland". Wikidata items should only cover one object. If an Wikidata item falsely describes two or more different objects then there should be created an own item for each missing object. Example for Heligoland: municipality Heligoland island Heligoland
[outdent] Wikidata items do not describe two objects.
OSM relation 3787052 has tag place=island and is, correctly, already tagged wikidata=Q17043877
There is clearly an equivalence between instance_of=island and place=island
There is no equivalence between place=island and instance_of=municipality_of_Germany
- Look at the history, I've fixed the object in Wikidata of course already: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3038&action=history I try to figure out more problematic examples.--4rch (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Another problematic example I've found: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q204096 The mappers have to be made aware of that Wikidata needs much consolidation at the moment and that there are many faults (instance of, duplicates, ...) in Wikidata. And that one object in Wikidata should be one object in OpenStreetMap. Not like Wikipedia where different objects are treated in one article and you can add the same link to different OSM objects. --4rch (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- The two most frequently occurring Wikidata keys are Q146924 (Roman Limes, 66 times) and Q16200592 (List of Stolpersteine in Witten, 18 times). The latter is a list article, but should that really have a Wikidata key? --LA2 (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like this new way is the one? I don't know enough about 3D buildings or the Taj Mahal to edit here. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375257537#map=18/27.17457/78.04166 --ElliottPlack (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If I look at http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9141, I don't see the reference deleted, it is still the Taj Mahal...
- Same thing for the second example OSM data for Balwin Street: the indicated wikidata value is still valid in Wikidata. — Verdy_p (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The issue I brought up was regarding this page, not the wikidata entry, which was fine. I see that you have updated the infobox. The deleted item was the OSM object that represents the Taj, the deletion of which ironically demonstrates the very fragility of OSM IDs. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Awikidata&type=revision&diff=1326347&oldid=1305699 --ElliottPlack (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it was not clear in the first message, that's why I not just used the OSM ID in the link, but also used the coordinates. It's very unfortunate that this wellknown monument can be defined first as a relation then deleted and replacd by a single way (when in fact it has not disappeared), the single way is oversimplified anyway, there was no value in editing it this way: there was a relation because it was better defined before (the 3D model supposed to replace it in not in the OSM database. I think that some details should have been kept, even if there was an additional external 3D model... — Verdy_p (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree fully that it is unfortunate! It is too bad that the schema for OSM was not set up for persistence of linkability (or something). Ideally, one could somehow *link* an object to be deleted to a new object. Thanks for fixing the link on the site. I also left a changeset comment for the OSM editor to come check out this page. --ElliottPlack (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)