Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/archINFORM project ID

archINFORM project IDEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Descriptionidentifier for a project on the archINFORM website
RepresentsarchINFORM (Q265049)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameter|2= in Template:ArchINFORM (Q6611520) with |1= being "projekte"
Domainarchitectural structure (Q811979), urban project (Q18577275), archaeological site (Q839954) (list will need extension)
Allowed values([1-9]\d{0,4})
Example 1Umayyad Mosque (Q183562)11922
Example 2Angkor Wat (Q43473)3853
Example 3Machu Picchu (Q676203)3857
Example 4Plan Voisin (Q1850299)3292
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useas a unique identifier and source for projects, especially those so far uncovered on Wikidata
Number of IDs in source>76.000 (less than 80.000;, 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC))
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1.htm
Robot and gadget jobsMix'n'match hopefully, it should be possible to import the IDs for the entries on archINFORM having a Wikidata ID directly.
See alsoStructurae structure ID (P454)


ArchINFORM has entries for more than 76.000 architectural projects. It havily uses content from Wikimedia projects and has links to Wikidata for many entries. It shouldn't be so hard to fetch the IDs of the entries already linked to Wikidata. That said I think especially those not yet here are of value for us: The database comprises many unbuilt projects (proposed building or structure (Q811683)) and modern buildings without heritage designation for which we don't have items yet. Unfortunately, small parts of the content is German-only. In 2016, a proposal for " availability" as a boolean value has been closed as not done for lack of support. However, a property with external ID datatype wouldn't have no dependency on the Wikidata ID available at archINFORM and could help creating items based on archINFORM entries – a main purpose of this proposal. --Marsupium (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Fralambert (talk) (Canada and United States)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) Yarl ✉️️  Spinster 💬 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Acka47 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC) --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) VIGNERON (talk) Marsupium (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Runner1928 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) --Alexmar983 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC) --Titodutta (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC) -- Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Pmlineditor (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Rajeeb Dutta (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC) --Ananth subray (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC) --Sumanth699 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC) --Ranjithsiji (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC) --MNavya (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Blademasterx (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Buccalon (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC) --Planemad (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Nizil Shah (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Ivanhercaz (Talk) 10:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 16:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Mallikarjunasj (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Built heritage @Arch2all

  •   Support - Indeed, I think the additional buildings would be very interesting. Spinster 💬 15:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Thanks for such a detailed proposal. --abián 15:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - PKM (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm involved in the archINFORM database and suggested in 2016 the proposal for " availability". Reason for the "unusal" kind of authority entry was the fact, that we maintain on our own at archINFORM a pretty huge (and actual) authority relation table with links to selected big authorities (Wikidata, GND, Getty, ...). With a "classic" proposal (like the actual one) data maintenance has to be done twice (at Wikidata and archINFORM), which is more error prone. Neverthereless there are reasons to do it this way and of course I will help to populate this authority entry, if it will be accepted. --Arch2all (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    I thought about that. Of course it creates redundancy and more work when changing something. I'm not sure if it is more error prone tho. I see that having the data here can help
    1. spotting duplicates and clusters here and on archINFORM and improving both databases, namely using distinct values constraint (Q21502410) and single value constraint (Q19474404),
    2. finding new links between the two and
    3. creating new Wikidata items based on archINFORM entries with Mix'n'match.
    This isn't possible with a boolean availability property. Also we have the linking problem with such a property here – which could perhaps be solved. But it is worth thinking through both possibilities with the scenarios and deciding which bringst highest quality data for least work!
    Is the relation table somehow available (meaning without scraping all the 76k entry pages)? Thank you, --Marsupium (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It's possible to create a relation table "wikidata <-> archINFORM project ID" in csv format. --Arch2all (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Cool! --Marsupium (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marsupium, Spinster:   Done: archINFORM project ID (P5383). − Pintoch (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)