Wikidata talk:WikiProject Music/Archive/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Musicbrainz
Would be well worth comparing what Musicbrainz.org does in this space. Their IDs would be useful to include in an infobox for an Artist or Album ("release group")
- Currently there are related properties MusicBrainz artist ID (P434), MusicBrainz work ID (P435), MusicBrainz release group ID (P436), MusicBrainz label ID (P966), MusicBrainz area ID (P982), and MusicBrainz place ID (P1004). Does this answer that, or did you have something more specific in mind? Sweet kate (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). It would be great if you would see room for interaction! Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
First performances
How do we record first performances of a work? We have date of first performance (P1191) for the date, but what about the location (qualifier? with which property? can’t find an accepted one), and possibly other data? --DSGalaktos (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Use location (P276) as a qualifier. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! --DSGalaktos (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Op. X
What’s the recommended way of recording the opus number of a composition, e. g. Symphony No. 5 (Q188709) op. 67?
- catalog code (P528): op. 67
- catalog code (P528): 67, qualified with catalog (P972): opus number (Q385271)
- other?
I’m not sure which one I would prefer… —DSGalaktos (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The documentation for catalog code (P528) says it should always be used with the qualifier catalog (P972), so I'd say the second option fits that requirement best. Sweet kate (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- That’s probably also better to parse (“Op.67” / “op 67” / “Opus 67” / …), but one problem might be that opus number (Q385271) is not any instance of catalogue (Q2352616), since “Opus” is ambiguous across composers. (Creating a separate “Opus” catalog per composer would probably be overkill though.) —DSGalaktos (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)