Wikidata talk:WikiProject Periodicals

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Topic: main subject (P921)?[edit]

Why do we not have a indication of how the topic should be added? I suppose that main subject (P921) would be the obvious, but I note here and there are used field of work (P101), see, e.g., [1]? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

annual volume (Q19816504)[edit]

After some thinking out loud at Project Chat as to the correct understanding of annual volume (Q19816504), and its relationship to volume (Q1238720), I have made the following changes:

I hope these changes make sense, and are acceptable. Jheald (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Biodiversity Heritage Library[edit]

A few weeks ago Magnus's Reinheitsgebot created Wikidata items for about 60,000 titles from the Biodiversity Heritage Library. These items include all sorts of things -- books, periodicals, catalogues, individually bound article reprints, technical reports, etc -- but also quite a few periodicals.

About 2000 of the items, that can be retrieved with this query: were tagged with keyword "Periodicals" at BHL, and I have made instance of (P31) periodical literature (Q1002697).

There are also some items which did not have the 'periodicals' tag, but nevertheless do appear to be periodicals, based on their having a large number of volumes, eg this list of about 180 with more than 10 volumes: (I didn't catch this in time, before creating huge numbers of links to the Internet Archive for them, one for each volume. Per the design recommendations on the front page here, these probably ought to be split out into separate items for each volume).

There's also a further set of items that had multiple volumes, numbered by year. I'll try to tag these and add a query for them soon.

There are a few issues with these items:

  • Many of them are probably duplicates of items we already have for periodicals.
I see that User:PieterJanR has caught and merged quite a few, but I suspect there may be quite a lot more still to do. I am not sure what the best work-flow for identifying these would be.
UPDATE: Thanks to User:Rdmpage showing me where to get an (incomplete) list of ISSNs out of BHL, here's a query for some of the merge candidates, that match a publication with an existing ISSN: Jheald (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A lot of the items could use a better instance of (P31), but it's not clear to me what it should be.
For example, what should The Garden: an illustrated weekly journal of gardening in all its branches (Q51481557) be? Just a magazine (Q41298), or something more specific? While Proceedings of the Bournemouth Natural Science Society (Q51522324), a proceedings series of a local amateur society, would seem not to be a scientific journal (Q5633421) or a proceedings (Q1143604); but what should it be identified as?
Some sort of clean-up project is going to be needed; but before that, a good guide to help classification might be useful.
  • Inevitably there are a lot of further statements that probably could/should be added.
A first iteration of a dashboard, with counts of the statements currently on the items, can now be found at Wikidata:WikiProject BHL/Progress:Titles, which may inspire people as to what can be added.
Please do add yourself to the #Participants section at Wikidata:WikiProject_BHL#Participants if you are interested! Jheald (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Values for distribution (P437)[edit]

It would be useful to agree some values for distribution (P437), in particular how to represent eg "print" and "online" as a qualifier on ISSN (P236).

IMO, existing values aren't particularly useful for this:

I am tempted to go with printed matter (Q1261026) and digital distribution (Q269415) as possibly the best options at the moment, but am happy to change if we were to find (or create) better choices. Jheald (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

online publication (Q1714118) may be better for online. I'll change qualifiers using digital distribution (Q269415). Jheald (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Start time / End time as qualifiers[edit]

I find that it is quite often that I want to specify a range of years or volumes as a qualifier -- for example: under an external ID, to indicate that a particular date-range of the journal is available with that ID, or that the institution uses that ID for a particular date-range, perhaps with another ID for another date-range.

Is it appropriate to use start time (P580)/end time (P582) for this? Or would that be interpreted that this a former ID for the journal, that was used between those years, but which has now been replaced (for all copies) by the new one? Jheald (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In my view the use should be okay, because if an identifier has actually been withdrawn, it should be marked reason for deprecation (P2241) = withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764), and deprecated. Jheald (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)