Wikidata:Property proposal/BioRxiv ID

BioRxiv ID edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: BioRxiv ID (P3951) (Talk and documentation)

Description	identifier of a document in bioRxiv, a preprint repository for the biological sciences launched in November 2013
Represents	bioRxiv (Q19835482)
Data type	External identifier
Template parameter	biorxiv at en:Template:Cite journal
Domain	scientific articles
Allowed values	\d{6}
Example	TP53 copy number expansion is associated with the evolution of increased body size and an enhanced DNA damage response in elephants (Q28597702) → 028522
Source	http://biorxiv.org/search/limit_from:2010-01-01%20limit_to:2017-02-16%20numresults:10%20sort:relevance-rank%20format_result:standard
Formatter URL	https://doi.org/10.1101/$1
Robot and gadget jobs	Import all 8420 articles to Wikidata
See also	arXiv ID (P818)

Motivation

Possible a useful database for source metadata. GZWDer (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would like a more descriptive name. Maybe either "BioRxiv article ID" or "BioRxiv document ID". Is the domain purely article as states or does it also include other scientific documents? ChristianKl (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is, however I note that arXiv ID (P818) has only rarely been used despite being around quite a while, will this one actually be heavily used here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it has recently been added to CS1/2 templates on the English Wikipedia. Filling it with a bot should not be very hard (same for arXiv). − Pintoch (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Set to non-ready, given that my question for the proper name stays unresolved. ChristianKl (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Marked as ready; name at the discretion of whoever creates it, and subject to editing by consensus, like every other property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If nobody cares enough for the property to have a proper name for it, I don't think it's valuable to create it. Given that there are sometimes disagreements about names I think it's valuable to have consensus for a property name when creation. Errors can be fixed but it's useful to do things right the first time. ChristianKl (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I implied above I think the name is fine exactly as it is, by analogy to arXiv to which this is a close companion. I suggest it be restored to ready status unless you really feel strongly it needs to be changed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This looks like it will be useful for bibliographic metadata. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GZWDer, YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Pigsonthewing: Done ChristianKl (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]