Wikidata:Property proposal/CAOI person ID
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
CAOI person ID[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
Motivation[edit]
– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1Veertje (talk • contribs) at 19:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC).
A directory of Iranian architects - also abroad - with, for each, a biography, a professional background and some of their achievements.
Notified participants of WikiProject Biographical Identifiers
User:Doostdar for Wikidata:WikiProject Iranian Persian —Eihel (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
{{Oppose}}- @Eihel: Property proposal is not a vote, so simply voting is not useful.--GZWDer (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello GZWDer
1)See the original proposal: example 1 false and without signature & motivation. 2)See my edit summary. If the applicant wants to redo a proposal, without error and complete, she does not hesitate. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a database with ~400 notable Iranian architects. How is that not motivation enough? I think you're very shallow for not looking past the mix up of names when it's very obvious that AmirAli Sardar Afkhami is clearly notable enough for a Wikidata item of his own. 1Veertje (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @1Veertje:, Everything is in my last intervention. So, I return the "compliment" (which puts you much more in the wrong way !!). I give an opinion as shallow as the proposition is, but you show up when it's over. I would vote to have a property as interesting as this one. If only someone could make a complete and error-free proposal… —Eihel (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a database with ~400 notable Iranian architects. How is that not motivation enough? I think you're very shallow for not looking past the mix up of names when it's very obvious that AmirAli Sardar Afkhami is clearly notable enough for a Wikidata item of his own. 1Veertje (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello GZWDer
Nothing is preventing you from being that person. 1Veertje (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
{{Not done}} Incomplete proposal (no motivation given), now stale and opposition expressed (albeit also without explanation). JesseW (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JesseW, Eihel, 1Veertje: I have reopened the property proposal, to receive more potential comments.--GZWDer (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Support --Epìdosis 08:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose This is on the small side. The relevant wikiproject guideline says: "The basic threshold is 1,000 or more individuals, with some smaller identifiers included if they are substantially complete." 400 doesn't really reach that, nor is the site scoped to a narrow set of people such that it seems "substantially complete". Please do add links to the 400 people as general references/biographies, but it doesn't seem like creating a property is really appropriate. JesseW (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, @JesseW:, I have not noted this point on the number of id. So I remove the wikiproject and exceeds 100 id for a property. There is not so much Iranian props :) —Eihel (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't seen the overall 100-item minimum for all properties. My opposition still stands, though, as this is very evidently a biographical identifier property, whether or not the WikiProject is alerted to it. :-) JesseW (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JesseW: That the site contains biographies does not mean that we should reject all properties under 1000 ids and containing bio. There are even properties with bio reaching well over 1000 ids that are not in this project, but stored in other projects. —Eihel (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Eihel: I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I already confirmed that linking to this site as a source for the ~400 people mentioned on it is fine, and welcomed. It just doesn't need its own property. And what does the relevant WikiProject guideline mean if not that we shouldn't create properties for collections of biographical identifiers smaller than 1,000? JesseW (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JesseW: You get that recommendation from the project. By taking it in full: This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but it highlights most of the well-used identifiers. The basic threshold is 1,000 or more individuals, with some smaller identifiers included if they are substantially complete. Library authority identifiers are listed separately in the following section. ; you understand that this is a recommendation on their list. But the project does not govern all of WD's properties. In summary, properties that THIS PROJECT is dealing with contain more than 1000 ids, properties that are not in this project do not have to have 1000 ids. Now that I have removed this project from the proposal, your opinion is no longer linked to it and the future property with ~200 ids is fine. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the larger quote, but it doesn't change the situation. The guideline doesn't apply merely to properties where someone happens to have mentioned the WikiProject, but to properties that are biographical identifiers, in any context. If you want to claim it doesn't apply, you need to explain why this proposed property isn't a biographical identifier (which seems difficult, given that it's an external identifier for people). Or you can work to change the guideline. JesseW (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- There is also the important clause about being "substantially complete". If you can show that there really aren't more than about 400 contemporary Iranian architects, then this would satisfy that. Or if there are, say, more like 800, wait for the site to get to at least 750, then make the property at that point. But to make that argument, you need to provide sources (separate from this site) for the total number. JesseW (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JesseW: So the participants of this project decide on the properties of WD? Again, no. Whether it's a proposal on people, fine. Once again, a wikiproject (therefore the participants of this project) decides which identifiers fall within their criteria (I write their criteria well and not the WD criteria). But a proposal which approximates a wikiproject cannot be rejected because only one project decides otherwise, that would be aberrant. A wikiproject is only part of WD, just as participants in a wikiproject are only part of contributors.
- Demonstration by the absurd (going in your direction), if each of the biographical identifiers must reach 1000 ids, we can remove all the identifiers of astronauts, F1 pilots, navigators, troubadour, etc. And waiting for 1000 astronauts or 1000 F1 pilots to exist is not feasible either (and even less for what no longer exists, the troubadours). Professional video game players are already limit acceptable.
- I didn't realize this wikiproject was meant to be "generalist" on their property, but one project doesn't govern the rest of WD and the coming of another property dealing with people. I was just looking for an "architecture" project, but I couldn't find it. So the 1000 ids are only intended for the list below the sentence only and I don't have to wait for this project approval for this proposal. Your opposition no longer needs to be. —Eihel (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding your categories of people with fewer than 1,000 examples -- that was exactly what I was talking about "substantially complete"; those categories would satisfy that criteria (assuming the source had most of the examples), since the source would be "substantially complete". As for "governing", you seem to think this is a hard rule -- it's not, it's a guideline, with persuasive force. You don't need to convince me that it doesn't formally apply, you need to explain why this should be a substantive exception. I already explained some possible ways. I don't think I'm going to respond further to this; I'll leave judging whether my concerns have been addressed to someone else. JesseW (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JesseW: You get that recommendation from the project. By taking it in full: This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but it highlights most of the well-used identifiers. The basic threshold is 1,000 or more individuals, with some smaller identifiers included if they are substantially complete. Library authority identifiers are listed separately in the following section. ; you understand that this is a recommendation on their list. But the project does not govern all of WD's properties. In summary, properties that THIS PROJECT is dealing with contain more than 1000 ids, properties that are not in this project do not have to have 1000 ids. Now that I have removed this project from the proposal, your opinion is no longer linked to it and the future property with ~200 ids is fine. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Eihel: I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I already confirmed that linking to this site as a source for the ~400 people mentioned on it is fine, and welcomed. It just doesn't need its own property. And what does the relevant WikiProject guideline mean if not that we shouldn't create properties for collections of biographical identifiers smaller than 1,000? JesseW (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JesseW: That the site contains biographies does not mean that we should reject all properties under 1000 ids and containing bio. There are even properties with bio reaching well over 1000 ids that are not in this project, but stored in other projects. —Eihel (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't seen the overall 100-item minimum for all properties. My opposition still stands, though, as this is very evidently a biographical identifier property, whether or not the WikiProject is alerted to it. :-) JesseW (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, @JesseW:, I have not noted this point on the number of id. So I remove the wikiproject and exceeds 100 id for a property. There is not so much Iranian props :) —Eihel (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support Mix&Match catalog created. --Gerwoman (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Veertje— Eihel (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- What is your opinion, GZWDer ? —Eihel (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Eihel, Doostdar, GZWDer, 1Veertje, JesseW, Epìdosis:
Done as CAOI person ID (P9444). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
