Wikidata talk:Property proposal/Person

Italian Wikipedia person data

General discussion: Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/02#Italian person data

• We're fetching data from the it.wiki person data w:it:template:bio, used on about 220k articles (see User_talk:Legobot/properties.js#Italian_person_data), but we're missing a few properties. All of them except title and citizenship are basically mandatory, even if not enforced by the template, so we have probably about 200k entries going to use each of them. Feel free to propose exact names and descriptions for each property and to split in different sections if needed. We'd also need comments on the best way to handle the 500+ authorised values for the main occupation(s) field of the template. --Nemo 08:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing properties:
    • First name (Nome), see #given name / Vorname / prénom
    • Last name (Cognome), see #surname / Nachname / patronyme
    • Day and month of birth (GiornoMeseNascita)
    • Year of birth (AnnoNascita)
    • Day and month of death (GiornoMeseMorte)
    • Year of death (AnnoMorte)
    • Title to be used before name, or after it in some languages other than Italian (Titolo)
    • Unrecognized citizenship, e.g. Curds (Cittadinanza)
• At the moment there is no TimeValue datatype. The property proposal for birth and death had been moved to the page Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending. What I don´t understand, you are separating year and day plus month. Why? --Goldzahn (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  To link them and for automatical categorisation: they're not hidden data, they're used for crucial pieces of the articles. You don't need TimeValue datatype, they can just be links, like Q2355 and Q1998. Any reason why they shouldn't? --Nemo 13:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  I believe that the TimeValue will be available shortly (within two months). So I think it's a bad idea to create a lot of statements using a sub-optimal solution and having to move them to the good solution two month after. More, as Wikidata statements are not currently used by Wikipedias I doesn't see why it's very important to have birth and date death just now. Tpt (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  If it's just two months then it makes sense, but is there documentation somewhere to understand if this is concrete and believable plan and why it's superior? Also, should separate sections be created for title and unrecognized citizenship? Thanks, Nemo 15:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  Here is the specification of the dates and times type. Tpt (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. It still doesn't say if that's a draft too or not, how it's superior to the system above nor when it's expected to be delivered. --Nemo 21:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  Date/time together with geocoordinate is planned to come soon. Before it are string (and numbers probably). It is currently planned as a nice-to-have for the deployment at the end of March - meaning we'll try to get it ready for that but it might take a bit longer. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think the person data properties are to difficult to import en mass data from WP. --Goldzahn (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  Which, the occupations? The rest is fairly easy. --Nemo 09:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support: These datas are well formatted and full of details. Why can't we move on importing data? 99% of {{Bio}} is verified. This template was almost the only reason that led me to propose it.wiki as a test wiki.--Nickanc (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support As Nickanc said above. --Viscontino ^talk 10:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Include marriage information with a new qualifier

Wikipedia usually supplements its spouse information in infoboxes not just with an end date, but also with the reason it was ended, e.g., divorce (Q93190), annulment (Q701040), the subject's death, the spouse's death. Wikidata should keep track of that information too, but I'm not really sure what the best name for this qualifier would be or whether it should be specific to relationships or be broaden to anything that also uses end time (P582). Cbrown1023 talk 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your wish has nothing to do with this property. It belongs to "spouse". GerardM (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cbrown1023: I think it would be better done with two generic properties "start reason" and "end reason", that way we could use it in other statements as well. You could also use "start reason" when it is known, like arranged marriage (Q1923231)--Micru (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Micru. That's actually the only name I had come up with — I'm glad someone else came up with it too! "start reason" and "end reason" are as good of names as any, so I guess I'll propose it on the main page. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic#end reason. Cbrown1023 talk 02:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Contributed to

More a discussion of the need and I will let the more experienced people here fine tune/translate this request to the components of your jargon.

I am wishing to represent BY PERSON that they CONTRIBUTED to a voluminous WORK, examples being the Dictionary of National Biography (63 vols.), 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (many vols.), Popular Science Monthly, etc. Often with these people they have significant components and they had initials used to identify their work, and such there would need to be a _qualifier_ CONTRIBUTION NAME to the CONTRIBUTED BY. It is often in the 19th century that these authors were contributing to many types of works, and utilised the same initials, nickname, across the body of their contributions, it may be possible to utilise PSEUDONYM though it is not quite the same connotations of use.

From the English Wikisource side, I would be looking to be able to retrieve the fact that they contributed to voluminous works, and pull back the overarching name of the work, as such there is a simple list of contributed to work A with contribution name A, work B with contribution name B, ...

I can see that for more modern works that you may simply wish to note a title, year, volume, year, issue, pertinent pages (standard referencing) as qualifiers to a published work and happy to have that conversation, but is less my need at this point of time.

It isn't a NOTABLE WORK, as that is indicated that that is by a single user, not a multi-author work, especially where they are known for a specific part, or many particular smaller parts. Thanks for people's assistance with this request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to create a property, please add the {{Property documentation}}, otherwise it will be a puzzle for property creators how to create the property. If you don't want to create a property, please move this thread to the appropriate place. Mbch331 (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mbch331: We don't have any alternative "appropriate place". Property proposals are in practice the main place for ontology discussions where we can come by to an actual decision. I suggest to divide the process in two ways : first we discuss, then property creators validate a concensus if the discussion come to a conclusion or if there is no opposition whatsoever, then the participants create the templates and the property creators conclude by creating the properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mbch331: If you had read the first line, I asked for someone to sort through the local components, and I explained what I desire and why. I do enough xwiki things and here I just want to do the additions, not have to dig through your protocols, your nomenclature, and jargon. At the sites where I am most active I do this thing called "assistance" where users don't know the minutiae, and I am asking for that courtesy here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I applaud your efforts and I'll gladly translate into Wikidata terms ('jargon'). notable work (P800) seems somewhat similar. But a specific property for works a person contributed to, i.e. is one of many authors, seems appropriate. Such a property should be datatype = item and domain = person. But is there any reason not to use contributor to the creative work or subject (P767)? Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC) It would also be inverse of contributor to the creative work or subject (P767). Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

First request of a new ID : help!

Hi there I have submitted my first ID proposal and I am not sure I did everything correctly! Can you help!--Nattes à chat (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)