19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
How can i show that this music video was released as a bonus feature on the home video release of the 2003 film Lara Croft: Tomb Raider – The Cradle of Life?
haven't really worked much with video but generally speaking I would work from the main release on down, not from the bonus material up, if that makes sense? So either using "tracklist" (if a DVD), or "has part" linking to the video from the Lara Croft title.
Purely for human readability I use published in to indicate the other direction, although that is strictly speaking redundant.
I'm pretty sure the home video release is the main release
that's what I meant - I would point to the bonus feature from the Lara Craft release, using tracklist if it's on a disc, or maybe "has part" if it's a VHS
...using a qualifier "object has role"/"has quality" = "bonus material". That's how I do it for bonus tracks and hidden tracks on music CDs, but like I said no expert on video stuff.
[WMF Board of Trustees - Call for feedback: Community Board seats] Meetings with the Wikidata community
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is organizing a call for feedback about community selection processes between February 1 and March 14. While the Wikimedia Foundation and the movement have grown about five times in the past ten years, the Board’s structure and processes have remained basically the same. As the Board is designed today, we have a problem of capacity, performance, and lack of representation of the movement’s diversity. Our current processes to select individual volunteer and affiliate seats have some limitations. Direct elections tend to favor candidates from the leading language communities, regardless of how relevant their skills and experience might be in serving as a Board member, or contributing to the ability of the Board to perform its specific responsibilities. It is also a fact that the current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Western Europe. In the upcoming months, we need to renew three community seats and appoint three more community members in the new seats. This call for feedback is to see what processes can we all collaboratively design to promote and choose candidates that represent our movement and are prepared with the experience, skills, and insight to perform as trustees?
In this regard, two rounds of feedback meetings are being hosted to collect feedback from the Wikidata community. Two rounds are being hosted with the same agenda, to accomodate people from various time zones across the globe. We will be discussing ideas proposed by the Board and the community to address the above mentioned problems. Please sign-up according to whatever is most comfortable to you. You are welcome to participate in both as well!
- Round 1 - Feb 24, 4:00 pm UTC
- Round 2 - Mar 3, 4:00 am UTC
- Sign-up and meeting details: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Community Board seats/Conversations/Wikidata
Also, please share this with other volunteers who might be interested in this. Let me know if you have any questions. KCVelaga (WMF), 14:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Quesotiotyo - You said "it's common for Americans to be known only by their primary given name and family name; she would be called "Brandi Carlile" even if she weren't a performer; "stage name""
This isn't really a rule is it it? Billy Ray Cyrus is not recording as "Billy Cyrus", Dolly Rebecca Parton performs as Dolly Parton but Rebecca Lynn Howard doesn't perform as "Rebecca Howard". We need a way to indicate what name variant a performer uses when performing even when it's not a pseudonym. Any ideas?
I don't understand the distinction that you are trying to make. None of these people uses a different name when performing. They are all known by their name in native language (P1559) in virtually every context. Brandi Carlile (Q164060) and Dolly Parton (Q180453) happen to be known by their first name and surname (as are most Americans), in which case the full birth name is given at birth name (P1477). The absence of that property for the other two that you mentioned indicates that they are known by their full names.
I can think of many performers who are known entirely by their stage name (Q1055303) and a few who are known by a stage name when performing vs. their actual name when not. I'm struggling to think of anyone who is known by both their full name and a shortened form of that name in different contexts.
Brandi Carlile is an example of an artist that performs using one name ("Brandi Carlile"), while she uses her full name or middle initial when composing music ("Brandi Marie Carlile"/"Brandi M. Carlile"). This is quite common.
I'm not trying to be nitpicky or start a quarrel here, the problem I want to solve is how to make a machine/program/query understand what name to use in a given context when an artist has several names or name variants. I agree with you that it's mostly obvious to the human eye (of a music fan), but how to relate that information to a script/query?
I have to disagree with your statement that she uses a separate name when composing music (I'm also not trying start a quarrel, I promise!). Just because a particular catalog has chosen to include her middle initial/name (likely for legal reasons) does not mean that she has chosen to use that as a separate identity. I do agree with how you used named as (P1810) for IPI name number (P1828) (though personally I would rewrite it in the proper name order for clarity's sake) and I think it's perfectly fine to include any such name as an alias. I don't see the need to do anything more beyond that.
maybe I'm overthinking it, wouldn't be the first time :) As for the IPI "named as" I always copy the names exactly as found in ISWC, including when names are spelled wrong. It helps when checking against the registry later but isn't really meant for general/sparql consumption.
It's always nice to meet a fellow overthinker. :) Good point on copying the names verbatim. I did the same thing recently when I discovered several misspelled names on orcid.org and I wanted to note the error on the person's page without adding it as an alias and propagating it.
Ha en fin dag!
Just wanted to warn you about duplicate items that you worked on both of:
These are not duplicates. Q369809 is the song/composition, while Q60732117 is the recording/track.
Why? This is how the order of artist discographies is supposed to be documented.
Like you are literally undoing everything I did regrading the sequence of releases.
A constraint warning is planned to prevent "follows"/"followed by" as statements, since they become problematic or even meaningless without context. not just for music, but also books, movies, etc.
That's why we are trying to move all instances away from statements and into qualifiers, and why we've started making all these "Wikimedia albums discography", "Wikimedia EPs discography", "Wikimedia singles discography", etc. to handle the chronology.
I didn't mean to "mess with your stuff", sorry about that, so I'll back off Twice for now, I'm just happy that more people edit music so not trying to make any enemies :)
I thought they would be useful because of this example:
What if a album comes after an EP or vice-versa? Documenting this under the EP list as a qualifier kinda makes this a conflict.
Also, I eventually want to add support for Wikidata in the Template:Infobox album on the English Wikipedia.
I planned to use follows/followed properties for the chronology section:
If you want a chronology that mixes EPs and albums then you could make a list ala "TWiCE EPs and albums in chronological order" or something similar. It's perfectly okay to have the release be part of more than one discography. In fact, sometimes the chronologies are different from country to country, so in many cases we split into "US albums discography" and "UK albums discography" as an example.
I know that Catalan Wikipedia has implemented this new follows/followed by system in their infoboxes, could be worth taking a look at how they did it for inspiration?
The catalan Wikipedia uses follows/followed by:
Also, with Infoboxes/Wikidata integration, iterating through qualifiers and accounting for different lists (some that probably don't exist), is a lot harder than just maintaining an actual release series using follows/followed by.
I based my discography edit structure off of The Beatles' albums in chronological order (Q61027305).
It uses the structure you proposed using lists and qualifiers for each of the albums, but also maintains the follows/followed by structure. I think keeping the structure is necessary.
The Beatles chronologies were made by me as you might have noticed, (they were among the first ones I did so could probably use a revisit ;) ).
Beatles is a perfect example of a case where follows/followed by statements break completely because of different chronologies in different markets. English Wikipedia has solved this by keeping separate timelines ("The Beatles North American chronology" etc.). I've tried to do the same in Wikidata.
I fear maintaining both is a losing battle and personally wouldn't write new code based on it, but I'm not the boss or the one making the rules, if you feel strongly about it by all means go ahead.
I'll definitely use your method of lists + qualifiers since it makes sense.
Shouldn't one update Wikidata:WikiProject_Music/en#Release_properties to indicate that this schema should be used over follows/followed by?
Also, could a type of list be made that complies the the album and EP lists for an artist so that it can be used by the Wikipedia album infobox.
A bot could be used to merge lists. And now that I think about it, a bot could probably be created to manage all discography lists.
Yes, bots could absolutely be used to do much of this, and do it much better (proper tables!), and I hope they will soon. The manually maintained lists we currently have is really more of a stop-gap attempt at order as we slug through the hundreds of thousands of music items that need clean-up before making any sense :-D