To my understanding, only official music videos should have their own item anyways. I'm not sure what's the point of adding this.
Return to the user page of "Moebeus".
Reply to "Regarding Has quality: Official music video"
Reply to "Los Berrones"
Reply to "Named after on "December Will Be Magic Again""
Reply to "Phonographic copyrights"
Regarding Has quality: Official music video
you have "official music video", "lyrics video", "director's cut", "uncensored video", "censored version", various DVD/bonus material versions and I guess potentially many others, but do what you feel is best, I have no strong feelings about it.
A second thing: Do you think music videos should use language of work or should they use name or original language of film or TV show?
I haven't really thought about it, but I guess I would go with "original language of film or TV" for the sake of consistency. Just my opinion though.
Oh, and I saw those cool auto-tables on your user page. Do you think you could find the time to teach me how to do that?
23:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Just passing by to thank you for your edits in items related to Los Berrones. I've been trying to complete their discography in the last days, and your edits make a very useful example (I wasn't even aware of the existence of some of those properties, and the difference between song and music track is interesting), so I take note of it to fix my previous work. Regards.
My pleasure! You've been doing some fantastic work, I'm always happy when people take music editing seriously👍 By the way, do you have any information on Caridad Garcia Gracia ? She appeared when I looked up the Mentires song, but I couldn't find any more info than name and IPI.
Googling her name I found her credited as a lyricist in some other songs by them (Chacho (Q66827763), Nun yes tú (Q66809349), Como Prince (Q69577241)) but I couldn't find any additional information, and I had never heard of her before.
A propósito de nada: Have you heard the new Niño de Elche + Los Planetas? https://open.spotify.com/album/38fYJfL7yyGFm954TZbnjd?si=JMwMxFG2Q32TrmnzWI4iwA Fucking awesome!
I hadn't until now. It's not particularly my style of music but it's a good album
Named after on "December Will Be Magic Again"
Hi Moebeus, I noticed that you removed named after (P138) December (Q126) on December Will Be Magic Again (Q56027173). I'm not completely sure why: do you think that the song's title is not inspired by the month of December? Or do you think that it is the wrong property? (I use these statements for queries like the number of songs named after a month for each month: )
Hi Valentina! First of all, sorry for removing the statements without checking with you first, to be honest it just went a bit too fast and I didn't see that it was you that added them. Please just restore your edits and I will try not to do that again.
That said, I have a couple of issues with your approach, and some questions. Maybe we can work together on it?
Number one is why you don't simply query for songs with the name of months in the title? And my number one issue is that if everyone did this I'm afraid the properties would be filled up with "named after X" based on every single word in the titles, or "main subject" with every word in the lyrics (yes, there are examples of that and the thought behind it actually good). Other minor questions: how do you source and add references to claims like this: How do we know that Kate Bush didn't name the song after her dog that's called December (she didn't, but you get my point 😄)
I guess my gut instinct would be to not touch the Q-Item of the song, but rather move it to curated lists like "list of songs named after the month December" with a Property:P3921 containing the relevant query syntax. But that's just, like, my opinion, man!
Let me know what you think, I think you do awesome work so I don't want to mess anything up.
Thank you for your answer and the questions!
1) Query for songs with the name of month in the title (probably as a string-query?) - I did not think that this would be a good idea for two reasons: First I would need to query for the name of the month in all languages and forms and second - as you noticed yourself - there is the problem that a title may contain a string that is equivalent to the name of a month in one language but does mean actually something totally different (just think of the English "march" that may also mean the music genre or Bloody Monday (Q22021883), April Fools' Day (Q80949), etc - titles containing "bloody monday" are probably not really referring to the day of the week but rather to the event. Another problem of a string based query is that it does not cover synonymes.
2) "Main subject" should definitely not be used for everything mentioned in a song - it is defined as referring to the "primary topic of a work". I can imagine that for some uses with good intentions literary motif (P6962) would be probably better. But "named after" is not restricted to the "primary namesake" - it is described as "entity or event that inspired the subject's name, or namesake (in at least one language)". So I think its use here is appropriate (and I would tend to say that every concrete entity mentioned in the title can be indicated via this property - most titles are not that long and don't mention too many things)
3) I totally agree with your "minor question": I also asked this myself - and I have no good general answer here. In the case of "December Will Be Magic Again" I thought that this is implied by the song itself (e.g. the lyrics) and its context of creation. But if somebody would express doubt about this I would probably just go along with deleting this statement unless I find a better source where this is a bit more explicitly stated :)
4) I'm not sure about your suggestion of using Wikidata SPARQL query equivalent (P3921) along with a list-item: To use Wikidata SPARQL query equivalent (P3921) I would need a statement on the item that indicates this named-after relation - otherwise I could not write a query that I could use for this Wikidata SPARQL query equivalent (P3921). And if it would be ok to include a song in a list "list of songs named after the month of December" I think it should also be ok to indicate this at the item (you would just delay the sourcing/excessive-use problems from the item to the list).
1) Fair points! I wouldn't use a string-query my self, but rather something like a look-up table containing the relevant strings. But like you're pointing out this is kind of a dead end.
2) It wasn't actually main subject, but rather depicts. Point in case: Göttingen: I saw these songs by Barbara with loong lists of depicts=NNN matching every word in the lyrics, none of them sourced. I just assumed it was a weird form of vandalism and started deleting. But then I found that user @Heldhy made the query Thèmes communs entre les chansons de Barbara et les discours d'Emmanuel Macron. Which is pretty cool, so sorry for deleting all those values Heldhy! But there has got to be a better way of doing this, and sourcing aside there is also copyright issues.
3) As long as sourcing is in place, people that disagree can simply use "disputed by" or deprecate or something?
4) Another fair point, the use of Wikidata SPARQL query equivalent (P3921)was kinda dependent on 1) working out. Which it clearly doesn't as you explained. My issues here is really more of an aesthetic one: I'm looking to keep the Q-Items as "pure" as possible - anything that remotely smells of curation is something I would instinctively want to to move out of a QItem and into something more free-form, like a list. But I realize that's more a question of style and not one of right vs wrong. So there you go.
Do you have a place where you showcase/collect these queries by the way? Who knows, maybe I can contribute some Scandinavian-language songs!
I collect music-related queries at this place: User:Valentina.Anitnelav/Music, but there is not too much, yet (and three of them are named-after-queries - so also not very creative :) ). But some more Scandinavian-language songs would be very appreciated!
Ontology is messy, especially when it comes to artistic works.
It may sound as if a song is about a month and it may actually be about a dog, and while often statements by the artist can be found to use as references and supported-bys (I encourage use of Genius song [numeric] I.D.s to help: P6218/P6361), it does not happen for most songs, and 'official' interpretation can prefer to remain vague or sometimes even misleading.
Even putting that aside, the work being done by compiling a knowledge graph is quite human in nature; an algorithm may be able to listen to an audio file and guess at contents thereof, but the concepts it has to work with were defined by humans and ultimately the output will be used and judged by humans. Does this mean we dispense with refs? Of course not, just that this is a process of judicious interpretation in large part, one often of boiling down.
Even the structures we are using demand this. For 'main subject', an interpretation of what is 'main' is required. Of course, maybe a source uses those specific words and can be cited uncritically, but that is unusual for most of the 'generic' properties (ones not specifically tied to an external identifier).
I think also a lot of Wikimedia-style editing falls prey to the fallacy that doing something is more drastic than not doing something, but indeed some of the more systematic weaknesses of our projects come from empty spaces, from underlying rather than overt biases (just take a look at analyses of the gender gap).
The Wikipedias encourage writer-editors to write from a neutral point of view. Not no point of view, since that is impossible, but one that considers the diverse audience and holds them to be the most important party in this interaction, much more than an individual opinion. The other strategy is to increase the number and diversity of editors to add balance through deliberation and peer review.
Anyway, to bring it back to music/literature and specifically musical/literate references, my take is that it is better to use judgment to add a connection that can then be critiqued by other wikidatans using WD's excellent metadata tooling (I crave being able to add 'statement is subject of', for instance) rather than eschewing adding it in the first place in pursuit of some goal of cleanliness, which linked data never achieves anyway.
Hey don't knock cleanliness - it's next to godliness! But yeah, I don't disagree. I think most things can be improved by common guidelines on how to do stuff though, so if we're able to hash out some kind of framework/best-practice going forward that would surely benefit everybody.
Hi. Do you know how phonographic copyrights expire? If 70 years after author's death (Q29870196) would expire so both company and author lose rights 70 years after the death of author?
No sorry, I don't know that off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure there's no one rule that applies world-wide and that it differs from country to country. The United States are sure to have some rules of their own. These right can also be renewed under certain circumstances, but I'd have to read up on that.
That looks good to me 👍 I forget the name but there is an editor that monitors copyright claims and makes adjustments where appropriate. You will probably see them making changes if there is a more accurate method.
Would be perfect if he could look at it.
otherwise it's a little messy mixing composition with the recording I think, why don't you split them up? And I'm confused by the two durations "3 minutes" and "3 seconds". Is it a mistake or do you mean to say 183 seconds?
I think song should be keept separetly from single + separate tracks from single and beats per minute (P1725) can't be stored in singles. I wanted to add duration (P2047) in minutes because it's natural so it's impossible?
There are three elements: 1. composition (song) 2. recording (track) and 3. release (single, album, etc). In addition you got music video created, so I would expect you to split that up!
Storing duration in minutes is... if not wrong, then at least inaccurate. Remember that the information in Wikidata is meant to be read by machines and not by humans, what's natural to us is not natural to them! :-D If you still want a "natural" presentation, I would suggest duration=183 seconds with a qualifier stated as = "03:03" or something?
Yes I want to keep them split but aren't they now? The question would be is single copyrighted separetly from song? Good idea about minutes.
"is single copyrighted separetly from song" - The answer is yes. The single and the audio tracks on it are covered by ℗ phonographic copyright The musical composition is covered by a different set of ©️ copyrights: mechanical rights and performance rights among them. Some of these can be sold, and some will belong to Basshunter forever :-D Also: The packaging design/cover photo on the single is covered by a separate copyright (C), and not the phonographic copyright (P). It's complicated!
20:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
20:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)