Wikidata:Requests for comment/Items for given names
| An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Items for given names" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- stale --Pasleim (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open request on Wikidata:Requests for comment/How to deal with given names and surnames which looks into some of the problems associated with given name (P735). This request however did not attract much interest over the last few months. In the meantime User:Jura1 went ahead and introduced a large number of claims for given name (P735). Jura1 went round the language difficulties by creating an entry for every name variant and adjusting the language links accordingly. The link between articles relating to the same meaning is now done through said to be the same as (P460). As most of the difficulties are already covered in Wikidata:Requests for comment/How to deal with given names and surnames, I just want to give two examples:
The Slavic name Yuri (Q18585594) (or Jurij (Q10944157) or Yury (Q3627558)) which is based on George (or Georgios) and is written as Юрий in Russian or Юрій in Ukrainian. How many wikidata entries should we have 1,3,7 or ?
Edward, Count of Savoy (Q739378) is also an interesting example. He is currently called Eduardo (Q18130894), which indicates that he got this claim from someone looking at the Spanish or Portuguese wikipedia.
The strict alphabetic approach reduces wikidata to a dictionary. The advantage of linking articles which cover the same subject is lost to a property which just compares sequences of letters. I would favour something like maintaining the context by linking only the most common spelling variant of a name in each language through wikidata and do the rest with wikilinks in wikipedia.
May be there should be two types of given names, a contextual one for names changing with languages and interwikis, and an alphabetic one for (modern) language independent names. Inwind (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Inwind:, good idea with having the main item for 1 name and several auxiliary items with forms! I understand problems you are describing, and User:Shlomo does. That's why he has proposed deletion of the property. --Infovarius (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- as participant to the Names projet, here is my position on the subject (written down a few months ago). My prefered solution would be, of course, the last one, with a "top" value to be used in given name (P735), and use of sub-class to link all specific names in various languages. :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the credit in the introduction, but the system wasn't actually developed by myself. I think it solved the issue we had previously with such items that resulted in interwiki conflicts being listed on talk pages as "unresolved". BTW random access to items is being implemented and might allow wikis to display interwikis from items listed in P460. --- Jura 05:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- as participant to the Names projet, here is my position on the subject (written down a few months ago). My prefered solution would be, of course, the last one, with a "top" value to be used in given name (P735), and use of sub-class to link all specific names in various languages. :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with keeping the status quo, that is - keeping the articles linked with an alphabetic approach. It is smarter to use the relation between the given names themselves. Unlike the alphabetic approach, there are sources to back those relations up, like for example there are book sources for the relation between given names in the nordic countries. The alphabetic approach does not have any such connection. As such, the alphabetic approach is not in line with the explaination of items in the glossary, as the sitelinks are not on an singular subject, and that needs to be dealt with. --Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure which solution(s) and parts of the glossary you have in mind, but you can't add sources to labels or sitelinks. You need to have statements. You can use P460 for this. --- Jura 10:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]