Wikidata:Property proposal/not found in

not found in edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: not found in (P9660) (Talk and documentation)

Description	publication or database relevant to the topic that would generally include similar subjects, but in which the subject isn't described or attested. Use if there is no external-id property for the work.
Data type	Item
Allowed values	publication or database relevant to the topic that includes similar subjects and could be expected to include this
Example 1	Atia Balba Prima (Q105474103) → Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic (Q100166489)
Example 2	Atia Balba Prima (Q105474103) → Paulys Realenzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Q1138524)
Example 3	Atia Balba Prima (Q105474103) → The New Pauly (Q12899625)
Source	link to publication index, search, related article where subject should be found. reference that states the absence in this publication/work
See also	described by source (P1343): work where this item is described attested in (P5323): document or corpus where the lemma or form of a Lexeme entity, word or name is used, but not described

Motivation edit

For publications that have external id properties, it's fairly easy to add this type of statement: novalue can be used with the property and some retrieved date.

It's not clear how this should be done when publications are added with described by source (P1343) or attested in (P5323). The above should solve this.

Possible other labels could be "not attested in" or "not described by source".

Please help by expanding the proposal and adding more samples. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 07:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support --Epìdosis 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control

Support --Emu (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe as an alternative/complement, we could think about better ways to document that the various entries of a publication or database are either complete or incomplete on Wikidata.--Pharos (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We have some approaches to document the coverage especially when there is a property. Also, there needs to be a way to determine this for a single person (item) without adding (e.g.) everybody mentioned in the three publications above. --- Jura 12:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Support --Kolja21 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jneubert (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uomovariabile (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great idea to point out potential biases and dark spots of certain publications. --Azertus (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1, Epìdosis, Emu, Nomen ad hoc, Kolja21, Jneubert: and @Uomovariabile, Azertus: Done. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]