Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/amount cataloged

amount catalogedEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work


2le2im-bdc (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Flor WMCH Gilliane Kern (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Laureano Macedo (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen VIGNERON scottythered Patafisik anarchivist KelliBee123 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Anne Chardonnens (talk) Yooylee 30 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Mlemusrojas (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC) erussey Kcohenp (talk) 16:28, 03 June 2019 (UTC) Mrtngrsbch Amandine (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Archival Description

I am proposing a new category for the amount or size of a collection that has been described or cataloged. This is to distinguish such use cases from the existing property collection or exhibition size (P1436). This could be applied at the institution's item, or for individually described collections or catalogs. There are many cases where the stated total size of a collection is different from number of objects that have been described in the catalog, and these are two different ways of measuring the collection.

This is especially true in the archival context, where you might have a collection with some number of processed and described records, and some as yet unprocessed records—particularly when accretions have occurred. It's also important that archives usually add measure size of a collection in volume or extent, separately from the number of cataloged records. For example, in the last example listed above, while there are 0 records individually described, there is still a stated size for the series of "1 linear foot, 9 linear inches". Dominic (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC).

See also Property talk:P1436 --2le2im-bdc (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


The size of the collection (objects) is only one. Another thing is the size (in objects) of the catalog or the works in exhibition. --Mrtngrsbch (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support David (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC) --2le2im-bdc (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --2le2im-bdc (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --LuciOle (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2019
  •   Support--Gilliane (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Yooylee 30 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: partial   Support, partial   Oppose I think this would be helpful as it could replace the current use of P1436 (see Property_talk:P1436#Range_constraint). I'm not entirely convinced by the current sample #4 above with 0 as value: it should be possible to do that with level of description (P6224). Maybe the property would need a range constraint generally excluding zero as well too. BTW, any statement with this property should include a date (either point in time, retrieved, or one on the dataset that is used), otherwise the statements are only marginally useful. --- Jura 09:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jura1:As I stated at that discussion, "level of description" is terminology from archival science which is not the same concept as how much of a collection is described. It refers to the level of granularity at which a collection is described, and it takes an item value, not a quantity. In the case of that example, it already has a P6224 statement indicating that the collection is a series-level archival description (series (Q3511132)). But a series-level description may have any number, including zero, of described records contained in that collection. Zero is a valid value, because there are many collections for which the collection itself may have been described at a high level, but sub-groupings or items within the collection are unprocessed and not yet individually described. And knowing that is a useful data point, especially in combination with a P1436 statement indicating the size of the collection is non-zero, so we can infer the collection is unprocessed rather than that it has no records. Dominic (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that these are still linked. Currently, I get the impression that most items that would use this property (based on current use of collection size) will have a zero item level description. I don't see how this would be needed as long as level of description (P6224) doesn't mention item-level descriptions and the number is actually zero. I think we need to improve the overall quality in one way or the other. Maybe people have other suggestions. --- Jura 16:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - seems a reasonable element to have, if we're going to have collection-level material on here. Presumably this should have a mandatory constraint that says we also need to have collection or exhibition size (P1436) on the item (it seems it wouldn't make sense in isolation, unless the number is zero because it's not even been counted much less catalogued...). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment As there was no support for the zero value samples, I removed these from above. Seems like people aren't much following this stuff. --- Jura 20:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yooylee 30, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Gilliane, Dominic, 2le2im-bdc, Andrew Gray: @Mrtngrsbch, LuciOle, Jura1:   Done: amount cataloged (P7328). − Pintoch (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)