Property talk:P1433

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


published in
larger work that a given work was published in, like a book, journal or music album
Descriptioncollective work(s), book(s) or periodical(s) where the work was published
Representspublishing (Q3972943)
Data typeItem
According to this template: published works (article (Q191067), poems, etc.)
According to statements in the property:
work (Q386724)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed valuesitem subclass of publication (Q732577) and/or work (Q386724) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
ExampleTo a Creole Lady (Q3576923)Les Fleurs du mal (Q216578)
L’Aérostation pendant le siège de Paris (Q15715588)Revue des Deux Mondes (Q1569226)
Sette piani (Q3478941)The Seven Messengers (Q2375534)
Commons example
Sourceréférence externe, article de liste de Wikipédia (soit infobox, soit source) (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property source website for the property (P1896))
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P1433 (Q20990017)
See alsopart of (P361), title of broader work (P6333)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses32,442,819
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Type “work (Q386724): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “work (Q386724)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1433#type Q386724, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Value type “work (Q386724), group of works (Q17489659), nonprofit corporation (Q17084016), news bureau (Q19824398), news agency (Q192283): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value work (Q386724), group of works (Q17489659), nonprofit corporation (Q17084016), news bureau (Q19824398), news agency (Q192283) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1433#Value type Q386724, Q17489659, Q17084016, Q19824398, Q192283, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1433#Conflicts with P31, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)



Usage note[edit]

Till July 2014 the more general term part of (P361) was in use. See also: Help:Sources. --Kolja21 (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Gegenpart / inverse part[edit]

@VIGNERON: Wie lautet der Gegenpart (contraste?) zu dieser Eigenschaft? Beispiel:

--Recherchedienst (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Same question, see Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books/2014#Need for inverse of Property:P1433. --Kolja21 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Recherchedienst, Kolja21: Oo, sorry I missed this discussion. Yeah we definitely need a inverse property. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

multi-part article[edit]

There is a question at Wikidata:Forum (German-equivalent to WD:PC) how to add an article which consists of multiple parts. An example item would be Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093). At the moment the qualifier series ordinal (P1545) is used to indicate the parts, but it is not allowed according to the constraints on this page. Any ideas, or experience? —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The message on WD:PC contains more information so I'll copy/paste it here :

At Wikidata:Forum (German equivalent of WD:PC) a question came up how to use published in (P1433) in an item about a scientific article which was published in two parts (both parts appeared in the same journal, same volume, but subsequent issues). The item in question is Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093). Please give input at Property talk:P1433#multi-part article to make this information permanently available for P1433 users. Thanks! —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

author  TomT0m / talk page 08:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: This looks like some edition/work problem. There is also a whole/part problem : the article has been published in two parts. Here is a proposition Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093) is the work item. There could also be an edition item first edition of Daseinskampf und gegenseitige. This item has two parts and/or is a series of article => then you get the "ordering" notion as a series is ordered. In the end, after analysis, this should be managed the same way any series of publications that makes a whole work are handled. Each of the subarticles are then published in the corresponding scientific journal issue. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! However, I don’t fully understand it Face-smile.svg … Some questions:
  • Did you suggest to add two additional (“part”) items for the two parts, which are connected to Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093) with part of (P361)/has part (P527) and which then take the published in (P1433) claims?
  • I don’t see the edition problem. Scientific articles typically do not have editions (they are published once, but don’t receive “updates” via editions). I don’t think there well ever be a second edition of this article available.
  • “this should be managed the same way any series of publications that makes a whole work are handled” — is there an example or description available? I was not able to find one.
Regards! —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • first point: Yep something like that. A (maybe not required) refinement (see point 2) would be to create another item for the first and only edition here, which takes the has part claims. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • second one: edition problem : this not always the case. First there is naturally a lot of versions of the paper, not all of them are published, but some are : preprints - to avoid copyright issue - workshop earlier version of the work, extended versions to publish in prestigious journals (see the question in for example ) - corrections (see for example ) ... so if you dig a little this is. But the necessity to always have an edition item is controversial and potentially not well accepted by WikiProject Books or people from Wikisource.
  • third: management of series of work : I was not able to find one. that's entirely correct. We're progressing on a case by case basis on that front. An example however of a TV series however : The Wire (Q478360) View with Reasonator View with SQID .I'd be happy if someone launches a RfC or something to figure this out as series of work are pretty common and I'd definitely see the values if series of books, comics, TV series and so on have clear and consistent guidelines. However such processes are likely to fail in my experience but maybe it's my fault :). author  TomT0m / talk page 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Okay, this sounds good, and I see why edition items could be useful (although I have no opinion on the question whether we should have them for all scientific articles, or just for those which have more than one edition). For me as an occasional user in this field it would be useful if there was kind of a guideline in a suitable WikiProject how to deal with these problems – and how to query for properly related items. RfCs are probably not the best method to set that up, I’d rather recommend to work with interested and experienced users in the WikiProject. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Something else : it appears quite correctly that the management of such a model can be heavy for people (including myself) sometimes, so that the either the enforcement of good practices once they are decided is to be helped with powerful tools or project like WikiProject Reasoning - Indeed if we decide that there is an article work for each article it could be useless to explicitly create them if not needed ... The same thing occurs if we decide that qualifiers of a reference established that there is an edition IRL that does not have an item in Wikidata ... I think technical solution to manage some implicit items would be a great help to make things easy for people as well as well-structured. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Why creating complexity ? Just create two items, one for each part. Then to link both items use followed by (P156). Snipre (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This solution would simply reflect the technical fact that the article was split during initial publication. I don’t know the reason for this splitting, but I could imaging several ones (part two was not prepared early enough, whole article was too long end the editor refused to print in its entirety, whatever…). However, the two parts together shape one article, so from the content side it seems reasonable to have one item for the entire work, regardless of possible “sub-items” for the parts. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

challenge mandated property (P2306), propose removal[edit]

I would like to challenge that we should be mandating property:P2306. There are multiple uses of P1433 for the entries in the biographical dictionaries and these entries have no specific title, so creating a title seems illogical. Similarly where it is used to identify part of a newspaper component, eg. a death notice, the snippet is part of the paper without specific reference. I would prefer if a title is required that it be on the actual item rather than as a label to the subpart of this property. Apart from the fact that it is added work without clear benefit.

I propose that we remove "item requires statement constraint -> property: title"  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As of today "Violations count: 108341" shouts at us.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
At this point of time I have removed the mandatory aspect and put it as an acceptable qualifier.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

SourceMD generated peculiar result[edit]

Can someone help me determine why published in (P1433) = Geologic map of Alaska (Q57841811) for items, e.g. Bathymetric contour map, surface area and capacity table, and bathymetric difference map for Clearwater Lake near Piedmont, Missouri, 2017 (Q59846243)? I thought maybe there was a problem in CrossRef, but I don't understand that resource AT ALL. This "published in" result appears in quite a few items that should have published in (P1433) = Scientific Investigations Map (Q59330615). I can probably figure out a Quick Statements way to replace the errors, but I'm also concerned it will continue to happen. Thank you. Trilotat (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)