Wikidata:Property proposal/ArchiWebture ID
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ArchiWebture ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
Description | identifier for an architect on the ArchiWebture website |
---|---|
Represents | ArchiWebture (Q84259431) |
Data type | External identifier |
Domain | human (Q5), organization (Q43229) |
Allowed values | \d+ |
Example 1 | Jean Bossu (Q3170857) → 4467 |
Example 2 | Paul Friesé (Q542879) → 20940 |
Example 3 | Renée Gailhoustet (Q3427144) → 29278 |
Source | https://archiwebture.citedelarchitecture.fr/voc/protagonistes |
External links | Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
Formatter URL | https://archiwebture.citedelarchitecture.fr/voc/protagonistes?protid=$1 |
Country | France (Q142) |
Motivation
[edit]This new Wikidata property for authority control for architects (Q56216473) would improve our coverage of architecture of France (Q2398144). Thierry Caro (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Notified participants of WikiProject France. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC).
- Support. Le Passant (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak opposeNeutral 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.
- @Nono314: OK. Thanls for the review. I have added organization (Q43229) in the
- 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)
- @Thierry Caro, Nomen ad hoc, Le Passant, Nono314: Done --Fralambert (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)