Open main menu

User talk:Jc86035

About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Jc86035/Archive 1 on 2016-10-01.

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Do you have any ideas how to best model mashups?

Have a look at this if you have time, I can't get seem to get it right: Q7459782


Jc86035 (talkcontribs)
Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Yeah, I've leaning on statement is subject of (P805) way too much, almost like a catch-all, after someone told me "instance of" shouldn't be used as a qualifier. I've come to over-use/misuse "object/subject has role" as well.

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Perhaps the qualifier isn't necessary? The item already clearly indicates that it's based on more than two originals and links to mashup (Q48445) and remix album (Q963099) in other statements.

Reply to "how to model mashups"
Moebeus (talkcontribs)

re your flexi disc edit: is it em dash (—) or horizontal bar (―) you're using? I didn't know about this convention, will stick to that going forward, thanks.

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

En dash (–). I'm not sure how common it is in languages other than English, though, so it might not be appropriate to use it in all of the labels.

Reply to "em dash"

Thinking about a new property: "recorded versions"

10
Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Something similar to tracklist, but for compositions of course.

  • It's a concept/term that is in wide use on (English) wikipedia.
  • It would function as a reverse property of Property:P2550 "recording or performance of"
  • it would allow linking a musical work straight to a music track without having to go through our current, slightly ad-hoc method of Performer>statement is subject of.
  • For the sake of readability properties like "performer" and "publication date" could be optional

Thoughts?

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Maybe not. I think it's unlikely that any more inverse properties will be approved, regardless of topic.

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Sorry if I'm harping on about this, but could Property:P1811 be used as an argument for "list of recordings" maybe?

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)
Moebeus (talkcontribs)

huh. Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but I can't see any reason given why inverse properties are bad practise, other than the commenter not liking it?

I realize of course that inverse properties aren't technically necessary, but that ignores the fact that people will keep adding properties they can't actually read/see on the item itself. So from a UX perspective I think they absolutely serve a purpose.


P.S. "There's a piece of user-written javascript you can use to automatically see properties on an item from the reverse direction" - do you know what userscript he refers to here, it's not the "What links here"-link is it?

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

I think the user script is Wikidata:Tools/Enhance user interface#derived statements. It appears to be somewhat useful, although it doesn't show qualifiers or references.

I think the necessity of the inverse property primarily depends on whether the MusicBrainz review/import is completed before or after inverse property querying is enabled in MediaWiki. (Given that m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Wikidata/Automatically add inverse properties was doing surprisingly well until it was pointed out that the specific method of the proposal [adding all the inverses) was much more problematic than just allowing inverse database queries, I would expect a similar proposal based on querying to do well in the November 2019 survey, so I'm guessing that the implementation would be between about 15 and 24 months from now.)

Anyway, regarding ArthurPSmith's comments, DeltaBot recently added about 1,100 child astronomical body (P398) inverse statements to Sun (Q525). If I were to propose the property then I would emphasize the argument that it's stupid to allow some functional inverses but not others (though the utility of an inverse recording property would probably be higher than that of an inverse modified version property).

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Finally, regarding the quality of MusicBrainz, I'm currently in the process of archiving a very large amount of Spotify albums to the Internet Archive, and extracting the ISRCs from tatsumo.pythonanywhere.com. Having a complete static database of several million ISRCs, connected to Spotify identifiers, it would probably become at least a little easier to fill out the gaps in MusicBrainz's data.

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Holy Moses, that's awesome! I don't know how you find the time to do all this stuff I'm well impressed 👏👏👏

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Me neither, to be honest. I said I was going to take a break soon. (Fortunately for me the archival work is largely automatic.)

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

I selfishly hope your break won't last very long, but you certainly deserve it ;)

Reply to "Thinking about a new property: "recorded versions""
Moebeus (talkcontribs)
Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

The "precedent" is more like the usual "we imported this and no one really cared that it wasn't technically correct so we kept going", isn't it? A single is literally not "part of" an album.

The notion of "single from an album" is fairly complicated, I think, and it doesn't seem very consistent to me, even for the more popular albums. For example, w:en:Dua Lipa (album) lists eight of the eleven singles containing tracks from the album as "singles". (The three that aren't listed are only included on the "complete" version, which was released about a year after the original album.) However, the oldest of those singles was released almost two years before the album itself was. On the other hand, w:en:Red Pill Blues lists only the latter three of the five singles containing tracks from the album; the second single was released nine months before the album was, and the third single was released two months before.

The rules for such a distinction might also vary from region to region; and if there were a complete set of data for an artist, it could be possible to query for singles associated with an album depending on how intricate the given rules are.

If there are actual definitions I think sticking more abstract concepts (e.g. "release for the purpose of album promotion" with an of (P642) qualifier – using of (P642) on the main instance of (P31) statement is probably too vague) into instance of (P31) could work, although this is really not anywhere near the top of Wikidata's music-related priorities.

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

"The "precedent" is more like the usual(...)" - I can't argue with that. I actually toyed with the idea of Album=>"has list"=>"list of singles taken from the album"=>list of singles, but abandoned it since it seemed like overkill for anything like super smash hit albums like Michael Jackson's Thriller where almost every song got released as a single.

Do you suggest simply removing these links as I find them maybe? I agree that this shouldn't be a priority, but it is an area where people seem to enjoy contributing 😐

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

I think it's probably better to remove them for now (at least in their current form; and I would have thought the part of (P361) was supposed to refer to the track and not the single), but I'm not sure. On the English Wikipedia there are usually mild edit wars over what tracks were actually released as singles (since e.g. there's no technical difference between a "digital single" and a "digital promotional single") and which ones count as "from the album".

Reply to "Andy Gibb"
Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Just looking for some guidance here: shouldn't Property:P1725 only be present on recordings, and not on the compositions themselves?

I thought Property:P1558 and Property:P3440 where for compositions while BPM was typically derived once a recording is made?

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)
Moebeus (talkcontribs)

I can't read music unfortunately - was that an example of both being present? I thought BPM was more of a modern term adapted to suit electronic music, boy does it look like I was wrong, hehe.

I guess what I'm after is a way to separate the time/tempo the composer envisioned, from recorded versions that might slow an original down or speed it up, like the Smurfs Eastern European pop stars are wont to do. Those guys often won't bother with registering an arrangement.

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Yes, the score's tempo marking is both in words (Allegro moderatotrès doux) and in BPM (120 quarter notes per minute). The piece is from 1903, although it seems BPM is a consequence of the metronome (1810s).

For recordings without sheet music I don't think it's worth adding the tempo, since it's practically unverifiable (from Wikipedia's standpoint) and any consequential addition of that data would probably have to come from a massive algorithmic MusicBrainz import. I would probably just add the length of the recording (to the recording) and the number of bars in the original sheet music (to the composition), since then the BPM could be approximated with bars × time signature ÷ duration in minutes.

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

(To be honest, I'm not really sure if any import could be made since all of the relevant databases are probably copyrighted. I don't have much experience importing data, but it's probably not something that anyone will really want to import in the near term, anyway.)

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

I see there's a few databases specializing in BPM: https://tunebat.com/, https://songbpm.com/, etc. If I'm not mistaken it's also part of the Spotify API, if they haven't closed it down by now. Well never mind, I guess I was just inspired by the tremendous work you guys have done on Q166904 Someone Like You. Seriously, that blows my mind right there, top notch 👏👏👏

I'll get back to what I'm actually any good at - tracking down the originals!

Reply to "P1725 beats per minute"
Moebeus (talkcontribs)
Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Sorry, I didn't notice you'd posted this. I haven't used some of those properties much, really, but they do all seem to be distinct (even if difficult to choose) to me

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Dude, I'm trying to go through my watchlist from when I was gone and I can see you've done a massive job reverting bad edits this last weeks. Big thanks👍

Reply to "so many choices, so little time"

Twenty One Pilots - Trench singles

7
Dennis Radaelli (talkcontribs)

Why move official singles into songs and also creating doubles (ex. Q60152572, track, and Q60152690, video)?

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Your talk page is here. I posted there once, not that long ago.

Wikidata doesn't have the same needs as Wikipedia. As you're probably aware, separate concepts should usually be treated as separate items. A music video (or a film) can have a separate item to a recording (or a soundtrack album).

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

By the way, please merge items instead of deleting statements and labels and waiting for someone else to clean the items up. In Italian this is "Seleziona per l'unione" or "Unione con l'elemento..." in the sidebar if you have JavaScript enabled, and Special:MergeItems if you don't.

Dennis Radaelli (talkcontribs)

Sorry, didn't see it and didn't know about that. But why transform an actual music-single page into a song page and creating a new item, deleting all the instance (Discogs, Musicbrainz, etc.)?

I think in the light of the linguistic version of Wikipedia I use to work, in which we have these instances encloses in a dedicated template that picks up those informations from Wikidata.

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Moebeus might be able to explain the rationale for separating the items better. However it basically boils down to

  • It's possible for Wikidata infoboxes to call data from multiple items (although to my knowledge none of them do that yet)
  • Most Wikipedias don't use Wikidata infoboxes very much (or at all) for songs, so right now it doesn't matter that much anyway
  • Other databases also use this separated structure (e.g. all of the items I created for Trench, except the music video items, have matching MusicBrainz IDs and Discogs IDs)
  • It's more difficult from the data consumer's perspective to deal with data consistently if some items (e.g. Let It Go (Q15282326)) are for a single, a track and a composition; some (e.g. The Star Spangled Banner (Q3989453)) are for both a single and a track but not the composition; some items (e.g. Dive (Ed Sheeran song) (Q31966127)) are for both a track and a composition but not a single; some (e.g. Let It Go (Q22257805)) are only for a track; some (e.g. The Star-Spangled Banner (Q44696)) are only for a composition; some (e.g. How Far I'll Go (Q28312308)) are for multiple tracks by different artists (as well as other entities); and some (e.g. Bohemian Rhapsody (Q187745)) are for multiple singles (as well as other entities). An analogy would be combining multiple people's dates of birth into the item for a band.
Dennis Radaelli (talkcontribs)

Very confusing, but I understand.

Moebeus (talkcontribs)

I think Jc86035 explained it very well! There are also international standard identifiers for each of these concepts, specifically ISWC for a composition, ISRC for a recording and UPC/EAN for a release. As a general rule none of those can be present on the same item.


Reply to "Twenty One Pilots - Trench singles"

Stop this reverting from ancient entries

2
Plagiat (talkcontribs)

Simply remove them, so you do not disturb other members with your work. --Plagiat (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Sorry, I won't do that in future.

Reply to "Stop this reverting from ancient entries"

Wikidata:Property proposal/maintenance tag

5
MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Hey Jc86035, I am having problems to submit a reply to your latest response, apparently due to some new preview feature which seems very buggy. I will reply later if it works again. Regards!

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

Is it the edit conflict interface? (It seems to have been broken earlier today.) Maybe try restarting the edit and pasting the comment into the new edit window, and/or disabling the two-column edit conflict beta feature.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Yes, that one. It ate my comment twice now during submission, so I’m a bit fed up right now. I will come back later to try again.

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

You might be able to retrieve it by pressing the back button.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Well I tried, but there was no way back (I took me a moment to realize that I saved the comment, but the software did not save anything at all). I also did not have it in the c&p cache any longer.

Reply to "Wikidata:Property proposal/maintenance tag"
Moebeus (talkcontribs)

Thanks fa bunch or doing all those restores, I only noticed now!!This happens a lot with that "distributed game" thingy, quite annoying. It would be ideal if we could somehow shield or block those types of semi-automatic updates when an item is more or less complete. Is there a property that can be set perhaps?

Reply to "Thanks!"
Return to the user page of "Jc86035".