Wikidata:Identifier migration/1

See Wikidata:Identifier migration for full history and User:ArthurPSmith/Identifiers/1 for statistics for properties on this page.

Properties in range P1 - P999: Wikidata:Identifier migration/0
Properties in range P1000-P1999: Wikidata:Identifier migration/1
Properties in range P2000-P2999: Wikidata:Identifier migration/2

Properties

edit

Done

edit

good to convert

edit

Both of these are external, and UIDs. Both are instances of Wikidata property for authority control for works (Q19833377). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoo man, Pigsonthewing: I agree, these two (+ Index Herbariorum code (P5858)) should be converted. --Epìdosis 12:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoo man: These are library classifications, so they should be converted; see Basisklassifikation (P5748), which has been created as external-id. --Epìdosis 12:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, classification systems are NOT external identifiers, unless them promise a unique ID for every work (which I don't think any of these do). ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith: The problem effectively is present in three of them, for which see now Wikidata:Property proposal/Library classifications' IDs for topics; in the meanwhile, @Hoo man:, Regensburg Classification (P1150) is already fine for conversion (since it isn't used anywhere for works or editions). --Epìdosis 22:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mix of good to convert and disputed

edit

talk]]) 03:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Not doing

edit
Note only 50.00% unique out of 318 uses ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with non-conversion. Merely a codified way of describing characteristics. --- Jura 19:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Now here's one that looks a lot like an identifier to me - maybe the "string datatype only" requirement should be relaxed to allow this? Or is there some other reason it shouldn't be on the list? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it doesn't meet the most recent criterion you proposed [1]. So finally, you think it's an non-identifier identifier?
--- Jura 13:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right on this one - I was thinking this was the identifier, but it's just the name - looks like they use DOI for the identifier according to this list. So this definitely wouldn't be eligible as an identifier. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment this is now deleted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

edit