Wikidata:Property proposal/indexed in bibliographic review

indexed in bibliographic review

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Done: indexed in bibliographic review (P8875) (Talk and documentation)

Description	bibliographic review(s) and/or database(s) which contain this academic journal
Represents	bibliographic review (Q59156132)
Data type	Item
Domain	academic journal (Q737498)
Example 1	Atene e Roma (Q15756358) → L'Année philologique (Q749828)
Example 2	JLIS.it (Q3805294) → Library and Information Science Abstracts (Q3831775)
Example 3	Games and Culture (Q5520104) → Scopus (Q371467)
Example 4	Gastroenterología y Hepatología (Q27714100) → MEDLINE (Q1540899)
Planned use	Slow manual additions, maybe some semiautomatic imports

Motivation

WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Bibliographic reviews and databases are important factors to judge the authority and the diffusion of academic journals. Potential qualifiers: start time (P580), end time (P582). Epìdosis 09:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support nice idea. -- Bargioni 🗣 10:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't this duplicate properties we already have for some of them? --- Jura 09:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: I haven't found properties pertaining specifically to this case. --Epìdosis 13:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, somehow I misread the proposal. We do have ids for articles indexed in some (which may be applied to items for articles in these journals), but not the above. --- Jura 13:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually do have scopus source id (P1156). --- Jura 08:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- Jura 13:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we can potentially use things like database IDs as a proxy for this, but having an item would make it easier to do things like record coverage dates and so on. I'd recommend "indexed in database" as the primary title and "...bibliographic review" as the alternative, though - I suspect this will be dominated by uses for the big bibliographic databases. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epìdosis: this seems to be ready for creation, except for the question about the label. Obviously, a more general label might lead to other issues. What do you think? --- Jura 13:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: I marked it as ready. No problem for me having "indexed in database" as label and "indexed in bibliographic review" as alias, or viceversa, as you prefer. --Epìdosis 14:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "indexed in bibliographic database" would be better? Agree "database" might be too general, but I think it is worth having the label align with the most common way it's going to be used. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the description that requires the values to be journals (and not articles or anything), but ideally we would have three samples that would justify the change of label, or an explanation why three of the current samples would required a different label. --- Jura 06:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally commented thinking that the most common uses for this property would be things that we definitely call "bibliographic databases" - eg Scopus and Medline, examples #3 and #4 - so that should be the primary label. I wasn't very familiar with "bibliographic review" but assumed it was common in a different field.

But after looking into it a bit more, it doesn't look like "bibliographical review" is widely used for this sort of thing in English - most examples I could find are people using it to mean review article, not a specialised type of journal. So I think using that label is going to cause confusion regardless. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epìdosis, Bargioni, Jura1, Andrew Gray:

Done indexed in bibliographic review (P8875) Pamputt (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]