Wikidata:Property proposal/Gujin Tushu Jicheng link

Gujin Tushu Jicheng link edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Sister projects

Withdrawn

Description	Linking to relevant page in Gujin Tushu Jicheng in Chinese Wikisource. Gujin Tushu Jicheng, also known as the Imperial Encyclopaedia, is a vast encyclopedic work written in China completed in 1725. The work is huge and estimated to have contained 3 to 4 times the amount of material in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.
Data type	Item
Example 1	tea (Q6097) → (欽定古今圖書集成/經濟彙編/食貨典/茶部) There should be a title data field (i.e., 經濟彙編·食貨典·茶部). It should be linked like 經濟彙編·食貨典·茶部.
Example 2	cheese (Q10943) → (欽定古今圖書集成/經濟彙編/食貨典/酪部) (經濟彙編·食貨典·酪部)
Example 3	Wang Xizhi (Q378564) → (欽定古今圖書集成/理學彙編/字學典/第097卷#王羲之) (理學彙編·字學典·王羲之)
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Robot and gadget jobs	For items with this property, add a "see also" template to relevant pages in Chinese, classical Chinese, and many other Chinese variants of Wikipedia to link to the work.

Motivation edit

This will allow Wikidata to include relevant links to Gujin Tushu Jicheng Encyclopaedia in Chinese Wikisource. It will make Chinese, classical Chinese, and many other Chinese variants of Wikipedia to link to the ancient encyclopedia easier. It will be a great facilitation to readers of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia mainly includes current information.

The Master (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Oppose See what should be done here (or here).--GZWDer (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GZWDer: This is good. I have created a template in zhwiki to display such links. However, there is a problem. Section links are in the same level as volume links. So how to show different sections in different volumes? For example, if subject X is recorded in s:BookA/volume 1#section I and s:BookA/volume 2#section III, then how to state so in wikidata? --The Master (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@維基小霸王: Add the same value twice with different qualifier.--GZWDer (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GZWDer:What if the entire first work is about the subject and only the second should be described by a section? (s:BookA/volume 1 and s:BookA/volume 2#section III)--The Master (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@維基小霸王: section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) can be left out completely. statement is subject of (P805) can also be left out, which should fall back to the main value.--GZWDer (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a confusion for users who don't know the rules. I will propose a change.--The Master (talk)
@維基小霸王: as example: (assuming the items have wikisource link; items without such links should be ignored)

described by source (P1343) = A => generate "A"
described by source (P1343) = A / section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) = B => generate "A#B"
described by source (P1343) = A / statement is subject of (P805) = C => generate "C, from A"
described by source (P1343) = A / statement is subject of (P805) = C / section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) = B => generate "C#B, from A"

--GZWDer (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GZWDer: What I want to say is, under the current structure, if there is a s:BookA/volume 1 and s:BookA/volume 2#section III, user have to type, in statement is subject of (P805), volume 1, volume 2 and, in section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958), <empty>, section III. Few users would know they must type <empty>.--The Master (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@維基小霸王: All qualifiers are optional. They can be left out completely and the module should check whether they are present.--GZWDer (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GZWDer --Nw520 (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose described by source (P1343). There are so many encyclopedias in Wikisource. A generic property like described by source (P1343) works for all. --Midleading (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:I see. I am just about to import the links as described by source (P1343). Anyone have an anwser about [1]? --The Master (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can I mark this as "withdrawn"? --- Jura 13:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1:Yes.--The Master (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]