Wikidata:Property proposal/national identification number
Social Security Death Index entry edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
| Description | Social Security number for a person listed in Social Security Death Index or Death Master File |
|---|---|
| Represents | Social Security Death Index (Q2296741) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | person |
| Allowed values | \d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4} |
| Example 1 | Marcy Leroy Ditmanson (Q84938650) → 397-10-0719 |
| Example 2 | Robert J. Ronald (Q84953656) → 527-02-0026 |
| Example 3 | Alfhild Jensen Gislefoss (Q15924627) → 397-32-8379 |
| Source | Various |
| Number of IDs in source | 89,430,629 For US citizen dead before May 31, 2012 |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete |
Motivation edit
For relatively non-notable people with relative few internet presence (e.g. here mentions several SSDI entries), or people with main activity outside United States (such as examples above), this may be a useful resource. But I don't know how can we overcome the abuse potential (e.g. crime of identity theft), especially in this anonymously editable wiki. This may provide some guide. (I have proposed that this to only be used as a reference, but someone may add it to items of living people.)
Actually it may be an identifier, but 1. This property may include identification number in different countries 2. In some countries the ID may be reused GZWDer (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Comment Yes, it definitely can't be an external id if you are intending this to be used with multiple countries. Also I don't think "stated in" is the right property to specify the particular identification being used. And I think this would be fine as a main statement rather than a reference, so the question would be what qualifier to use. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)- Comment. It shouldn't be limited to numbers either. Can you refine the entire proposal according to what has just been said? Thierry Caro (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- If the purpose is to include the social security death index, why not use that and call it that? Makes it much easier to ensure that it's used accordingly. --- Jura 17:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would concur, except that the identifier used for the US social security index is the same identification number used for living people for their Social Security benefits, and is considered generally a confidential number for living people, so it would be unclear what to call it to be both accurate and appropriate here... ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- If it's appropriate to include the SSDI here, I'm not sure if it helps to use a name that is too general (current proposal) suggesting to include content that is not appropriate. --- Jura 17:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would concur, except that the identifier used for the US social security index is the same identification number used for living people for their Social Security benefits, and is considered generally a confidential number for living people, so it would be unclear what to call it to be both accurate and appropriate here... ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: do you plan to update the proposal or shall we close it? --- Jura 12:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1, ArthurPSmith, Thierry Caro: I have updated the proposal but I don't know whether the current one is good.--GZWDer (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think it matches the usecase you presented and would allow to add the constraint for date of death (P570). --- Jura 08:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1, ArthurPSmith, Thierry Caro: I have updated the proposal but I don't know whether the current one is good.--GZWDer (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I think this is fine in its current state with the "death index" label. ArthurPSmith (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)- @GZWDer, ArthurPSmith, Thierry Caro, Jura1:
Done --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 01:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
