Wikidata:Property proposal/ArchiWebture ID

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArchiWebture ID[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for an architect on the ArchiWebture website
Representsno label (Q84259431)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), organization (Q43229)
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Jean Bossu (Q3170857)4467
Example 2Paul Friesé (Q542879)20940
Example 3Renée Gailhoustet (Q3427144)29278
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1
CountryFrance (Q142)


This new Wikidata property for authority control for architects (Q56216473) would improve our coverage of French architecture (Q2398144). Thierry Caro (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


Ash Crow
Thierry Caro
Nomen ad hoc
Marianne Casamance
Le Passant
Nattes à chat
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Le Passant (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak opposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not so fond about linking to what are basically bare search results with no data readily available... At least in the first 2 examples there's a link to the archive fund that prominently displays a really useful bio (though it's 2 clicks away). In the 3rd example however, the user has no other choice than ticking the box and launching yet another search with hardly convincing results. Also, while the property is advertised as Wikidata property for authority control for architects (Q56216473) applying to human (Q5), there are many entries not pertaining to that domain such as 61485, 5243, 61013 or 17903. So, while the site clearly features some interesting content, I'm wondering whether the property as proposed is really consistent? --Nono314 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nono314: OK. Thanls for the review. I have added organization (Q43229) in the domain field to make things clearer regarding the fact that it does not only cover humans. As for the rest, I believe it is a minor problem. We have many properties that do not have any associated website and thus a huge amount of IDs not linking to readily available web content. Here you actually get to see something and all it requires for important content to show up is literally one or sometimes two extra clicks, to tick a box and validate. I guess it's better than nothing appearing at all, isn't it? Thierry Caro (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Thierry Caro:Yes, we have a few external identifiers without formatters. It could be very useful if we had another property for, say, buildings that it could be used to cross-check. The fact is, I know you're usually proposing properties to feed your templates (like base-archi) and my comment was quite heavily based on that context, which may be too narrow.
Also note that most entities I referred too, may not actually be instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279) organization (Q43229) --Nono314 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)