Wikidata talk:WikiProject Periodicals

Active discussions

Data donation from ISSN Register (Followup)Edit

<ping project should not be used in an indented reply> John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Mahdimoqri (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Jsamwrites Dig.log Sic19 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Nomen ad hoc Pete F (talk) 99of9 Mfchris84 (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Runner1928 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC) --Juandev (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC) VIGNERON (talk) Uomovariabile (talk to me) 08:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC) SilentSpike (talk) Ecritures (talk) Tfrancart (talk) Dick Bos (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) --Rdmpage (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Clifford Anderson (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Parobis1 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Susanna Giaccai (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals and <ping project should not be used in an indented reply> Mattsenate (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
KHammerstein (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mitar (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Merrilee (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Pharos (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DarTar (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
HLHJ (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
JakobVoss (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Abecker (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Kopiersperre (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Dugan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hfordsa (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Runner1928 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete F (talk)
econterms (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sj (talk)
TomT0m
guillom (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
addshore 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ainali (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Shani Evenstein (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Skim (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ocaasi (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Trilotat Trilotat (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
NAH
Iwan.Aucamp
Alessandra Boccone
Pablo Busatto (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Blrtg1 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Kosboot (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Matlin (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Carrierudd(talk) 11:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
So9q (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData and <ping project should not be used in an indented reply>LeadSongDog (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
RobLa-WMF (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Kosboot (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Aubrey (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Raymond Ellis (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Crazy1880 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
T Arrow (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
GerardM (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC) With a particular interest of opening up sources about Botany and opening up any freely licensed publications.
Clifford Anderson (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Jsamwrites (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Samat (talk)
Ivanhercaz   (Talk) 20:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 - talk page) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Mahdimoqri (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jaireeodell (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Egon Willighagen (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
RobinMelanson (talk) 2:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC) interested, in particular because of TRR project https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56259739
Maxlath (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Dcflyer (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Trilotat Trilotat (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Salgo60 (talk)
Walkuraxx (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
NAH
FULBERT (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Wolfgang8741 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Csisc (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Phoebe (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Bitofdust (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData/More

Following previous announcement that the ISSN would upload some metadata from its ISSN Register to Wikidata, things have been moving slowly, of course also because of COVID, but now the development of a bot to do that job has started. Things have changed since the previous announcement :

  • ISSN will only upload data on entries that have an ISSN filled in in Wikidata with ISSN (P236). This :
    • eases the reconciliation process, that will be conducted only based on ISSN (P236); we will not try to reconcile based on publication title;
    • avoids the risk of creating duplicates if the match on the title does not work;
    • avoids creating tons of very small entities in Wikidata;
  • This upload will be done by an automated Bot, not through OpenRefine, this will allow to have regular updates from ISSN Register;
  • Of course the bot will preserve existing values, and add qualifiers and references to them when they are the same as in the ISSN Register; e.g. if a different value for official website (P856) or place of publication (P291) exists in Wikidata, it will be preserved, and new values with references to ISSN Register will be added;
  • ISSN will only upload current ISSNs on serial entities, not ISSNs corresponding to ceased or dead resources or titles, since the start/end date for these is not part of the free data; so, to avoid confusion between current information and retired information, only current information will be uploaded;
  • If the value of official website (P856) or place of publication (P291) changes over time, the old value will be preserved, with an "end time" qualifier (end time (P582)), and set to "deprecated" rank;

Below is a slightly updated data model diagram that reflects these changes :

 
ISSN Wikidata data model

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfrancart (talk • contribs) at 09:04, 9 June 2020‎ (UTC).

  • @Tfrancart: Good news. Just curious: how many current ISSNs are we missing (approximately)? Depending on the number, I could do some checks and create some or all missing items. --- Jura 09:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: last time we checked there was ~ 164k wikidata items with an ISSN. The ISSN register at https://portal.issn.org/ says 2739477 (2.7 million) notices, but this includes different notices for print/electronic variants, plus discontinued periodicals; I don't know the number of current ISSNs in the database. Please review https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/ISSNBot and recast your vote if the changes are appropriate.
    • @Tfrancart: I think the approval should go ahead. I ask a bureaucrat to look into it. Even if we (you) start with 164k, we could add more at a later stage. If we just look at print variants, how many could we potentially add? I don't mind creating the items if they can be completed and/or they are in use elsewhere. --- Jura 10:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: the idea is also to avoid creating useless items just for the sake of synching the ISSN register : let's simply wait for items with ISSNs to be created by people that need them, and the ISSNBot will enrich them; anyway yes, they can be added later as the bot will be run periodically.
      • @Tfrancart: np. I think most current ones were mass-created by Magnus to allow feeding from pubmed easily. Missing ones are currently just skipped. This is obviously suboptimal. The idea would be to make useful selection among the 2.5 million. Maybe anything with more than 10 years of print publication? --- Jura 10:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing periodicalsEdit

When checking a few articles, I noticed they had volume/issue/page numbers, but lacked a "published in" statement.

It's a known problem as the item for the periodical (here: Central Europe (Q98342911)) hadn't been created. For that publication, I could find more articles from that periodical with the DOI.

this query finds a few more, but others timed-out. Maybe Krbot can generate a report with the constraint I added to issue (P433).

It's probably worth going through more of the scholarly articles to find them. --- Jura 08:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: See [1].--GZWDer (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. Currently gives >300,000 articles. Maybe combining that with checks on DOI can get the journals fairly easily. BTW, some journals might have items in the meantime. I left a note on Wikidata:Bot requests--- Jura 09:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bulletin of the United States National MuseumEdit

So, we currently have four wikidata items named "Bulletin of the United States National Museum" in English as of writing:

The first two are linked to ISSN numbers 0362-9236 ("Bulletin - United States National Museum") and 0096-2961 ("Bulletin of the United States National Museum") respectively including the corresponding Wikispecies articles, and the last one is linked to "Category:Bulletins of the United States National Museum" on commons.

Can somebody make sense of these? I've been trying to do some fixes to wikidata items for periodicals recently, particularly those linked to Wikispecies, but I haven't a clue what to do with these ones. I'm not sure why there are items described as for volume 1 of either "Bulletin [of the] United States National Museum". I mean, the Internet Archive link in the first item probably is for the first volume only, but everything else linked to that item is the full series. But that doesn't explain the third item, which has no site links at all. Oh yeah, and the four items link to each other. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:RaboKarbakian made the changes and additions. --Succu (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Well then... @RaboKarbakian: can you explain what's going on here then? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
First, my short answer is that this is how the Wikisourcers want it.
Each book has versions and editions and perhaps ISSN numbers describe version and edition differently, I wouldn't know. We deal with scans of old books. Books that were bought at various print lots for hundreds of years. If those are separate scans that is what they are. If you have an ISSN, then you probably have a cover image that is not too big to be on the language wikipedia and can via a link to there. You have to make it jump through more hoops to upload it to the commons.
If there is a problem and those are all the same three publications, then fix it. I don't think so, for one with an ISSN number because the scans are not so organized. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Every scan might have one or more ISSN. I will look into this tomorrow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: Apologies for not responding sooner, I forgot about this discussion until just now! Anyway, the problem I was actually having with these is how the volume items have identifiers that are actually supposed to apply to the whole periodical, such as the ISSN, BHL bibliography ID, ACNP journal ID, etc. That they are applied to an item purportedly for a single volume of a periodical seems inconsistent with how periodical-related wikidata items are normally set up from my experience, which confuses me a great deal. I would have fixed it myself but everything here seems to be rather a tangled web. Q21385133 in particular appears to be linked from many other items as if it was the item for the periodical itself rather than a volume, despite what the label says!
If it helps to know, the two ISSNs I mentioned initially are for the same periodical but for different runs of it. According to ACNP [2] [3], ISSN 0096-2961 ("Bulletin of the United States National Museum") ran between 1875-1905, and was continued by ISSN 0362-9236 ("Bulletin - United States National Museum", or just "Bulletin") which ran between 1907-1971. Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we try to apply scientific journal (Q5633421) to just one of them or not have overlapping start/end dates if there are multiple items? --- Jura 09:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Start and end dateEdit

Please see Wikidata:Project_chat#Periodicals'_start_and_end. --- Jura 09:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Followed by = absorbed by?Edit

I'm wondering whether P155/P156 is used for when one periodical is absorbed/taken over by another? - Kosboot (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

According to this query several journals have been merged from multiple other journals, so why not? -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
There is also merged into (P7888) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikidata data modeling where there are often multiple ways to do it. To me it looks like merged into (P7888) is better but then a lot of existing followed by (P156) statements need to be modified. -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds to me that followed by (P156) might possibly be in some cases used more for “spiritual successor” than take-over (for example, Q20726050 is a sort-of successor to Joystick (Q3187262)). So I would agree that in case of actual take-over, merged into (P7888) is better. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your thoughts. Related to this is when a periodical is NOT taken over or absorbed or merged with another, but just changes its name. There are a lot of issues with periodicals that I don't see adequately covered in most Wikidata items (like when a periodical retains the same name but has a number of sponsors and/or publishers). - Kosboot (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this entityEdit

Q29519433 appears to be either a collection of scans of historic newspapers, and/or some editorial commentary on them. It was published on CD-ROM. I added a description, and added "instance of CD-ROM" but that doesn't seem quite right. It's a publication whose format happens to be CD-ROM. Hoping somebody has a better sense of what to do with this item. -Pete F (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this @Jheald: it looks much better, and helps me understand what to do in a case like this. Much appreciated! -Pete F (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Should instance of (P31) article (Q191067) really be used?Edit

I see in the current examples: Our Fragile Intellect (Q7110639) instance of (P31) article (Q191067). Naively, I would think that it's better to use academic journal article (Q18918145). Is there a good reason to use the more general property or should we update the guidance? <ping project should not be used in an indented reply> John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Mahdimoqri (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Jsamwrites Dig.log Sic19 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Nomen ad hoc Pete F (talk) 99of9 Mfchris84 (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Runner1928 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC) --Juandev (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC) VIGNERON (talk) Uomovariabile (talk to me) 08:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC) SilentSpike (talk) Ecritures (talk) Tfrancart (talk) Dick Bos (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) --Rdmpage (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Clifford Anderson (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Parobis1 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Susanna Giaccai (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals ChristianKl❫ 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:
There is two opposite tendancies: putting more general or more precise values. The is pros and cons for both, we should strive to be consistent though...
I would prefer more general values (personnaly, mostly per Occam's razor and the atomic principle of normal form databases). I see more and more talk about that recently, see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Cultural_heritage#Data_modelling_conventions_of_nature_de_l'élément_(P31),_genre_(P136),_levels_of_specificity,_and_consistency_across_cultural_heritage_description_on_Wikidata and Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Prints:_subclasses_vs_attributes_for_genre/form,_technique,_materials for instance. I feel like the "more general" tendancies is gaining ground recently (an after-aftermath of the P107 (P107) deletion...).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer something rather general for instance of (P31), similar to what is current practice for human (Q5). For publications, publication (Q732577) would probably be worth considering as the default. The more fine-grained information — which I agree is needed — could then be handled by other properties, e.g. genre (P136). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
literary work (Q7725634) is another option for a generic value. academic journal article (Q18918145) may also be a candidate for form of creative work (P7937). Ghouston (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the label of "scholarly article" (Q13442814). Not sure what the conclusion was (other than someone restore the label). --- Jura 16:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure exactly what would come under publication (Q732577), since its really a verb, not a noun (see it's English Wikipedia article). If we mean a published document or book, then a journal issue may be a publication and an article in the journal is just part of that. Typical items in Wikidata for articles have fields like published in (P1433) and volume (P478), which are specific to a particular printing, i.e., an edition. If we don't want to create work and edition items for journal or magazine articles, then I'd say they should instead be a conflation of literary work (Q7725634) and version, edition, or translation (Q3331189), perhaps with a new item created for this purpose, and making use of form of creative work (P7937) to indicate the specific type of article. Ghouston (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that such conflations aren't a very good database model. Perhaps a better idea would be to accept that for many works it's only necessary to have an edition item. The "work" item would only be needed if you want either a) to link multiple edition items together b) include external links to "work" items in other databases. (Also copied to a similar discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books.) That would mean the instance of (P31) for the typical article published in a periodical, which has no other edition items, would be version, edition, or translation (Q3331189). In some cases, preprints are also used as references, which would require a separate edition. Ghouston (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Preferred properties for periodical predecessors and successors?Edit

Are "followed by" and "follows" now the preferred relators for periodical title successors and predecessors? I recall seeing "replaced by" and "replaces" earlier, but the documentation may have changed recently, and it's not clear now. Also, someone just constrained the "replaced by" property (but not yet the "replaces" property) so that it's only supposed to be a qualifier, not a main property, and I don't see any discussion of this change. What's going on?JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Periodicals".