Wikidata:Property proposal/excavated by
excavated by[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | person who has conducted an archaeological excavation of a historic site |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Example 1 | Avebury (Q661855) excavated by→ Alexander Keiller (Q4719285) |
| Example 2 | Sutton Hoo (Q503256) excavated by→ Martin Carver (Q6775123) |
| Example 3 | Sutton Hoo (Q503256) excavated by→ Margaret Guido (Q20988956) |
| Example 4 | Tabun cave (Q2906739) excavated by→ Yusra (Q48742924) |
| Example 5 | KV55 (Q1636434) excavated by→ Lyla Pinch Brock (Q3269433) |
| Planned use | to add details to archaeological sites about who has excavated (conducted archaeological investigation) there |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| See also | studied in (P2579) |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
Motivation[edit]
I would like to propose this property for a few reasons. I'd like to argue this by way of example.
To take the example of Avebury (Q661855), we have options for
director of archaeological fieldwork - for Alexander Keiller and Stuart Piggott. Fair enough. However, there were many folks involved in excavations whose contributions therefore go unrecognised (for instance, Doris Emerson Chapman, Veronica Liddell, Barbara Laidler, and Denis Grant King, to name a few, who excavated but did not direct fieldwork).
The other option for adding people who have worked on the site, and which has been used on the Avebury item is:
category of associated people - which is far too general! Associated in what way?
Finally we have the property "studied by", which has some limited value constraints (the inverse item needs to have 'speciality, theory, field of study, branch of science, or scientific law', which does not neatly fit an archaeological site.
A property of 'excavated by' would also be able to introduce dates, so, for instance, Avebury could have 'excavated by' for 1930s excavations, 1960s excavations, and 1990s-2000s excavations, all led by different folks, and all, importantly, citable. Medievalfran (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- wouldn't the list for this property be ... thousands of people for some sites? would it not be better to have an item for the particular excavation and a link to the participant and the location? BrokenSegue (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. On some small scale archaeological sites that may work, but on large, training-ground archaeological sites, it may grow out of control. A field-campaign approache might be more adapted by allowing more flexibility on modeling where, what and by who, as well as links to the corresponding publication of that campaign. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per unadressed concerns. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. On some small scale archaeological sites that may work, but on large, training-ground archaeological sites, it may grow out of control. A field-campaign approache might be more adapted by allowing more flexibility on modeling where, what and by who, as well as links to the corresponding publication of that campaign. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment Notified participants of WikiProject Archaeology Notified participants of WikiProject IDEA --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Question @Medievalfran: Notified participants of WikiProject Antiquity I'm all for the idea, but the scope and use cases should be stated more clearly. Is this meant for the excavators responsible on site, for hands, for institutions granting the funds? Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)- I have similar thoughts as the users above. Only one additional thought: In the article of any excavator, the excavated sites could be added via Property:P2650. The opposite direction (= the possibility to see which researchers worked on a particular site) is missing not only for archaeological/paleontological sites, but also for every other topic that could be researched. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
OK - I think, it's a good idea. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Support, an important property for society.--Arbnos (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)- Support Helpful, but not significantly or particularly to have a strong support. Still an important property for society, but not especially or very much strong to have a strong support. Some but minor concerns are addressed. Solaris5296 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- the concerns are not addressed... BrokenSegue (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done, no clear consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Also didn't response questions/comments above. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
