Wikidata:Property proposal/documented files

documentation files at[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: documentation files at (P10527) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Institution that holds documented files about the subject
Represents	documentation file (Q109676250), person or organization (Q106559804), occurrence (Q1190554), mythical humanoid race (Q24533670), fictional character (Q95074)
Data type	Item
Allowed values	items about institutions or persons: organization Q43229, library Q7075, archives Q166118, museum Q33506,
Example 1	Elisabeth Feller (Q1329895) → SAPA Foundation, Swiss Archive of the Performing Arts (Q50920401) [1]
Example 2	Ciné-club universitaire de Genève (Q2973052) → Swiss Film Archive (Q688143) [2]
Example 3	Women's Strike of 14 June 1991 (Q27731559) → Swiss Social Archives (Q2256734) [3]
Source	https://www.jpaccart.ch/le-dossier-documentaires.html
Planned use	12'000 files from SAPA Foundation, Swiss Archive of the Performing Arts (Q50920401) [4]
See also	artist files at (P9493), archives at (P485)
Wikidata project	Wikidata:WikiProject_Archival_Description, Wikidata:WikiProject_Performing_arts

Motivation[edit]

It's a broader understanding of the property artist files at (P9493). We discuss the opportunity to change the name of artist files at (P9493) but it's seem better to don't.

Many heritage institutions have developed in the past a documentation structured in files about many subjects and not only in the artistic domain. This property is a great opportunity to give a large audience to this documentation. We see in particular a opportunity to find material to fill the gap between the gender in the Wikipedia's pages.

Notified participants of WikiProject Performing arts,

Notified participants of WikiProject Archival Description, @Aceven, Fuzheado, ASR06, Infopetal, Arbnos, Sp!ros: @Artchivist1, Berthoudh, UWashPrincipalCataloger:, @Hsarrazin, VIGNERON:, @Nattes_à_chat:

--SAPA bdc (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support, an important property for art.--Arbnos (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe "files about subject at" would be better Simple English? My thoughts are concerned with "document files" versus "documented files" where the -ed suffix brings a possible slippery slope for some folks. For instance, document file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) "A Document File" is not the same thing as "Documented Files", where "documented" we likely mean to fully define as "files - having metadata or reference by a system - that provide information about a subject". If so, than we should improve the description with something like that fuller definition. --Thadguidry (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, any Thing could be a subject, just give it a few years! :-) , so I'd likely loosen those type constraints --Thadguidry (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, I would like to hear opinions on how or why we don't or cannot treat these "files" as a "source" so that we are not able to instead use the existing described by source (P1343)? Let's fully flesh that out to see the differences or overlap with real world examples encouraged in replies to this specific comment. --Thadguidry (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finally, I'm worried that I am seeing more "at" kind of properties being proposed in the last 3 years, that are basically providing little metadata to users, and instead are simply being minted as more or less "GLAM SEO tactics". We should be trying to provide deeper information for users, and not simply "more info about subject at this institution" style properties (in whatever subform they are taking). We are better than that. We can do better than that. Let's think more about what users are likely missing from finding information on a given subject, and their needs for disambiguating that information. It might mean we need less properties and instead provide richer metadata in the form of qualifiers or better qualifiers than we have now to help users. --Thadguidry (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't archives at (P485) sufficient? --- Jura 09:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having trouble understanding what "documented files" are, exactly. Maybe examples could be provided to make it clear why these can't be treated as sources or called archives as others suggest? --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase "documented files" is not one anyone in the library/archives world would be familiar with. Terms like "pamphlet file" or "clipping file" are more easily understood. "artist file" already conveys the idea of files of ephemera related to artists held in file cabinets. They are not necessarily archival in nature, however, as in many institutions they are not kept in archival locations and may even be circulated/checked out by users. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many thanks for all your comments @Thadguidry, Arbnos, Jura1, Clements.UWLib, UWashPrincipalCataloger:. I will try to answer. First at all, I have to precise that I am not fluent in English (as you have certainly already understand ;-)) also I can be really precise in this Language. All kind of help is Welcome! --SAPA bdc (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadguidry: Wiki-GLAM is a official project of WikiCommunity. The scope to give visibility from the ressources of the GLAM on the Wikimedia Platform is central in this perspective. GLAM conserve huge ressources, hidden on the web, who can help all the open knowledge projects. The GLAM could (in a ideal world) introduce theyself the precise informations in the plateformes (write Wikipedia's articles, add declaration in Wikidata's item). They make it already but it's in priority the community who have to decide in which subject it want to extract the informations. GLAM have to indicate where are the ressources and help people to access to it. SAPA bdc (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clements.UWLib, I try to translate in Englich the french term "dossier documentaire". this term is wellknown in the French Area. You can find definition of it. This kind of documentation are in Swiss's GLAM (I can spoke only about what I know) often created during the Past. It's a file who you will find newspaper's extracts but also many other kind of publication. Now, this pratice is over. At least, on this analog Way. Most Swiss GLAM have decide to stop it but to conserve the files. A good example is the Cinemathèque suisse with the series DD1 and DD2. You will find some images online. If you can suggest me a good translation in Englich I would be very glad. SAPA bdc (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1, the use of archives at (P485) is reserved at the documents who are real archives. It's mean unique and original. A clipping files don't regroup original documents. Only diverse publications. To have a archives von Nelson Mandela, it's not the same to have a file with newspaper articles about him. Only few Institutions have the first, many could have the second. In the same way, in some Wikipedia there is a direct connexion on the value von archives at (P485) also it's important to preserve the unicity (and the quantity) of the kind of information. SAPA bdc (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is always the case. The use you are proposing seem to archives of documents about a person rather than by the person. Either would ideally be original, but aren't necessarily. --- Jura 07:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thadguidry I make a test with described by source (P1343). See described by source (P1343) of Elisabeth Feller (Q1329895). The result is not bad. I have to think about it. SAPA bdc (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of "Documented files" I would recommend using the term "Documentation files", meaning files containing documentation of or about a given topic (for example, a file containing collected documentation about a museum object). "Documented" does not carry the same meaning, nor is its meaning in English clear. I offer this perspective as a librarian and archivist at a GLAM institution holding archives, artist files and documentation files, which are each distinct in nature. I'm dropping in from the discussion over at "artist files at" because I see unique value in that property as well as "documentation files at" and "archives at", and would not like to see any of the three conflated. Appreciate the conversation! Artchivist1 (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @Artchivist1. After your comment, I change the title to "documention files at". Could you said us if your are for or again the creation of this property? SAPA bdc (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a useful property to indicate organized holdings of grey literature. Artchivist1 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I would go with "documentation at" though (in analogy to "archives at"). As it has been rightly observed, it could be used on a variety of item types. --Beat Estermann (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'd keep using archives at (P485) for this, even if it may include elements a typical archivist would shred. I could be fairly complicated to sort between the two properties and if we end up adding both, there is no advantage. --- Jura 10:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SAPA bdc, Arbnos, Thadguidry, Jura1, Clements.UWLib, MasterRus21thCentury: @Aceven, Fuzheado, ASR06, Infopetal, Arbnos, Sp!ros: @Artchivist1, Berthoudh, Hsarrazin, VIGNERON, Nattes_à_chat, Beat Estermann: Done as documentation files at (P10527). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don's see an additional value on this property. I believe it is rather misleading and will create problems when having to chose between this and "archives at". In my point of view any kind of "documentation file" can be seen and described as an archival collection. "Archives at" can include several of these nuances. Sp!ros (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are taking a broader view. But many are taking a narrower view here for good reason. Many universities and scientific institutions (NASA being one example) give unique ids for recording "a file" versus "a collection of files", which to them are two different things and not similar things. A good example would be Brighamia insignis (Q1934110) where data files and image files of that subject are maintained at this institution and no where else https://ntbg.org -- Thadguidry (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/documented files

documentation files at[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Navigation menu

Search