|This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.|
Templates Link GA, FL, FA on alswiki
On Alemannic Wikipedia (als:wp) we want to keep these templates for historic reasons. Please don't delete them.
- you removed http://viaf.org/viaf/19829265 which indeed clusters two different Hoggs, so it's difficult do decide of whom the cluster really "is" about (wrong question of course, it clusters whats inside). After inspection I had decided some days ago that the cluster is not about James James Hogg (Q6136153), the other Hogg: The cover image shows definitely concerns Charles F. Hogg, ISNI I usually disregard since its only confusing, Wikidata should be subtracted from such considerations, therefore only the SUDOC listing remains for "James", all other indicators are pro Charles. If we keep the connection of this VIAF entry with Charles Hogg, the number will show up as a "unique value" constaint violation and VIAFs chances are improved to split the cluster. Or - if you prefer to remove Charles, one should do the same for James.
- That was not how I was working with the data, I was coming from the enWS side timing up data that was scrambled from our end, not from the VIAF side.
- you added http://viaf.org/viaf/313757726 which stands for Charles Hogg's work Epistles to the thessalonians which is clearly not the person himself so it's not appropriate in Charles Frederick Hogg (Q16943689). -- Gymel (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Why you add is instance of (P31) = edition (Q397239) in La Cigale (Q15894344)? The Kiss and Other Stories by Anton Tchekhoff (Q15839163) is a edition (Q397239) (i.e. a book), La Cigale (Q15894344) is a Template:Q386724 (i.e. a novell). -- 07:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding of Special:Diff/241305137. The "no value" provoked a script error in ca:Module:Authority control, but I fixed it the proper way. Other projects may not have this fix. --Vriullop (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I'm not convinced by the use of "contributor" you are making. I think it might need to go the other way round: EB => person, not person => EB. --- Jura 14:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Really? <sigh> I am undoing. The property may need more clarity. Please tell me the property to apply at the person end that they contributed to a work. This is needed so I can redo contributor templates at enWS. I will look at the other way at another time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure. There is notable work (P800), but that doesn't seem to work in this case. Maybe P106 with an occupation "encyclopedia contributor". I suppose it depends on what use you are looking for?
- BTW, you might want to comment on Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#DNB. --- Jura 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
DNB property proposal
If you are in favor of the property, would you support it explicitly? It will enable to do separate queries on DNB much easier than any of the other variants. --- Jura 09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- For me, the DNB is just an example, though our biggest and most different. If you poke at s:en:Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries you will see the starting list of works that will need to be similarly referenced in time, and just for English Wikisource. So we need a model that covers all. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- In various fields, we have specialized properties, but also a general "catch all" for smaller ones (examples are: described at URL (P973), website account on (P553) ).
- If the DNB one works well, maybe this can help for the others. Obviously, if you are convinced by the P1343 solution, you might as well want to stick to that approach. --- Jura 11:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't bury myself in the technical minutiae of Wikidata. I am just looking for some consistency in approach that allows for ease of addition, clear ability to pull data cleanly at the sister site, reproducibility, clarity, and not require further and further maintenance when we arrive at the next biographical dictionary. Having to add information twice, as inverse to the other seems a waste unless there is a form to undertake it; or a bot that can come along and check and do the inverses. So be it described by source and give the work at the top and the actual account as a qualifierm is okay; or have the actual article, then put the word as a qualifer seems most pertinent. Separating it from described by source means that if a WS wants to import all the available articles, for a person, they should be readily 'pullable' by the same means. [Not sure that all makes sense, been a long busy week and only Thursday.] — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)