Wikidata:Property proposal/TED speaker numeric ID
TED speaker numeric ID edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
Not done
| Description | MISSING |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | human (Q5), group of humans (Q16334295) |
| Allowed values | \d+ |
| Example 1 | Julian Assange (Q360) → 779 |
| Example 2 | Rokia Traoré (Q256065) → 166 |
| Example 3 | Emmanuel Jal (Q1338331) → 492 |
| Source | https://www.ted.com/speakers |
| Number of IDs in source | More than 2000 |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| Formatter URL | https://www.ted.com/speakers/$1 |
| See also | TED speaker ID (P2611) |
Motivation edit
Like Twitter (Q918), TED (Q23054661) has two types of IDs: names (strings) and numeric IDs. TED speaker ID (P2611) accepts both types, and consequently it has hundreds of "single value" violations. It would be better to follow the example of Twitter (X) username (P2002) and Twitter (X) numeric user ID (P6552), and treat numeric IDs as a separate property that can be attached to TED speaker ID (P2611) as a qualifier.
If the name TED speaker numeric ID is too confusing or ambiguous, one alternative is TED speaker ID (numeric). —Ringbang (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Comment Do these string identifiers for persons change? If they don't, why isn't one identifier enough? Germartin1 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose I don't think a second identifier is needed. It should be decided which identifier is preferable (numeric or string) and this should be used for the existing property. The Twitter properties are detrimental to this proposal as a comparison in my opinion because Twitter data is more of a mess than it needs to be thanks to the existence of two separate properties. The reason Twitter even has two is because usernames are not stable and the numeric ID (the true account identifier) is - but was sadly created after the former. --SilentSpike (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've asked Jane023 and Pigsonthewing to comment, as they are/were the Wikipedians in residence at TED. —Ringbang (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well I would tend to agree that a second property is not needed. After all, you only have a few thousand ids anyway, so periodically clearing out the numeric ids should be fairly easy. The comparison to Twitter is absurd, since the scale of the two websites are nowhere near the same in scale. Jane023 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose A single property is sufficient. We can decide whether we want to allow both string and numeric or pick one and remove the other, but a new property is not the answer. Daask (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)- Oppose no need for two identifiers, I suggest to settle on one and then use it consistently. --Hannes Röst (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ringbang, Ringbang, Ringbang, Jane023, Hannes Röst:
Not done a single property is sufficient. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
