Wikidata talk:WikiProject Periodicals

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Followed by = absorbed by?[edit]

I'm wondering whether P155/P156 is used for when one periodical is absorbed/taken over by another? - Kosboot (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

According to this query several journals have been merged from multiple other journals, so why not? -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
There is also merged into (P7888) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikidata data modeling where there are often multiple ways to do it. To me it looks like merged into (P7888) is better but then a lot of existing followed by (P156) statements need to be modified. -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds to me that followed by (P156) might possibly be in some cases used more for “spiritual successor” than take-over (for example, JV (Q20726050) is a sort-of successor to Joystick (Q3187262)). So I would agree that in case of actual take-over, merged into (P7888) is better. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your thoughts. Related to this is when a periodical is NOT taken over or absorbed or merged with another, but just changes its name. There are a lot of issues with periodicals that I don't see adequately covered in most Wikidata items (like when a periodical retains the same name but has a number of sponsors and/or publishers). - Kosboot (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this entity[edit]

Q29519433 appears to be either a collection of scans of historic newspapers, and/or some editorial commentary on them. It was published on CD-ROM. I added a description, and added "instance of CD-ROM" but that doesn't seem quite right. It's a publication whose format happens to be CD-ROM. Hoping somebody has a better sense of what to do with this item. -Pete F (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this @Jheald: it looks much better, and helps me understand what to do in a case like this. Much appreciated! -Pete F (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Should instance of (P31) article (Q191067) really be used?[edit]

I see in the current examples: Our Fragile Intellect (Q7110639) instance of (P31) article (Q191067). Naively, I would think that it's better to use academic journal article (Q18918145). Is there a good reason to use the more general property or should we update the guidance? John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Mahdimoqri (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Jsamwrites Dig.log Sic19 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Nomen ad hoc Pete F (talk) 99of9 Mfchris84 (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Runner1928 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC) --Juandev (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC) VIGNERON (talk) Uomovariabile (talk to me) 08:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC) SilentSpike (talk) Ecritures (talk) Tfrancart (talk) Dick Bos (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) --Rdmpage (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Clifford Anderson (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Parobis1 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Susanna Giaccai (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Alessandra.Moi (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Alessandra Boccone (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Erfurth (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Mgrenci (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals ChristianKl❫ 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:
There is two opposite tendancies: putting more general or more precise values. The is pros and cons for both, we should strive to be consistent though...
I would prefer more general values (personnaly, mostly per Occam's razor and the atomic principle of normal form databases). I see more and more talk about that recently, see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Cultural_heritage#Data_modelling_conventions_of_nature_de_l'élément_(P31),_genre_(P136),_levels_of_specificity,_and_consistency_across_cultural_heritage_description_on_Wikidata and Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Prints:_subclasses_vs_attributes_for_genre/form,_technique,_materials for instance. I feel like the "more general" tendancies is gaining ground recently (an after-aftermath of the P107 (P107) deletion...).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The normal form database model is for relational databases, and a graph database / knowledge graph model is very different. Wikibase is not a relational database. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Example, the « scholarly article » class can really have different properties than the « article » in general. The peer review process is really specific to published process, and not relevant for magazines. And it’s in no case a « form » problem. There is several form for scientific articles, for example https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-a-State-of-the-art-paper-and-a-review-paper state of the art papers, review papers … and maybe sub-genre / sub-forms in each, hierarchically … you can’t deal with this easily with a rigid relational database scheme. The information that a paper is a state of the art is useful to have. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer something rather general for instance of (P31), similar to what is current practice for human (Q5). For publications, publication (Q732577) would probably be worth considering as the default. The more fine-grained information — which I agree is needed — could then be handled by other properties, e.g. genre (P136). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
literary work (Q7725634) is another option for a generic value. academic journal article (Q18918145) may also be a candidate for form of creative work (P7937). Ghouston (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Preferred properties for periodical predecessors and successors?[edit]

Are "followed by" and "follows" now the preferred relators for periodical title successors and predecessors? I recall seeing "replaced by" and "replaces" earlier, but the documentation may have changed recently, and it's not clear now. Also, someone just constrained the "replaced by" property (but not yet the "replaces" property) so that it's only supposed to be a qualifier, not a main property, and I don't see any discussion of this change. What's going on?JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Properties for periodicals tiers: work/series/volume/issue/article[edit]

I'm trying to work out how to construct data for periodicals at Wikisource. These are generally structured something like this:

  • Journal
    • Series (optional) - for example s:en:Portal:The Electrical Engineer has a few volumes in an untitled original series, then rebooted for a "New Series".
      • Volume (generally one year, not always), usually this is how scans come "packaged", but sometimes the scans are two multiple volumes or issues comprising two incomplete volumes. Some works, particularly newspapers don't have a formal "volume" tier.
        • Issue (weekly/biweekly/monthly/quarterly, etc, can vary in a given periodical over time)
          • Articles, which might be split into multiple parts and spread across multiple issues, volumes and series, and occasionally split within a single issue.

The question is, how should a work like The Electrical Engineer be structured on Wikidata? I have started with

In particular, I am unsure of:

  • the correct properties for the "series" tier
  • whether or not items should be created for series and volumes
    • if so, the titles for these tiers
  • should things like issue and volume be top-level properties or qualifiers on part of (I feel the latter may be more correct, but the former is more common?)

I eventually hope to be able to use QuickStatements or similar to make this easier, and the long term goal is to make a substantial about of labour at WS automated based on WD series/volume/issue properties. Therefore, I'd like to get it was correct as possible up front.Inductiveload (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: right, the article and top tier are perhaps the most straightforward, but my questions remain for the other aspects, which are actually more critical for a hypothetical data-driven structure at Wikisource for things like volume listings.
I also take it that it is the right thing to place volume (P478), page(s) (P304) and issue (P433) as separate, top level properties, rather than as qualifiers of published in (P1433)? Inductiveload (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the P1433 value at Q19100726 is currently ideal (compare with Recent advances in the detection of respiratory virus infection in humans (Q82838328)). I suppose it's debatable if the periodical to use as value should be:

Not sure if

are actually needed. You could just query that with volume (P478), published in (P1433) and issue (P433) etc. --- Jura 16:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1:, so volume/page/issue as top-level statements is best practice, and not as qualifiers of published in (P1433)?
I don't really have a preference, I'll do whatever is "right", but what that is is not quite clear to me.
I guess it can all be done with one big entity (and things like Handle ID (P1184), document file on Wikimedia Commons (P996), Wikisource index page (P1957), start of covered period (P7103), end of covered period (P7104), etc will have at least 'n' entries, each with a volume (P478) and maybe "series" qualifier plus another 'n times 26' entries relating to the issues). We can then dig the data out that we need to construct something about "Volume 1, Number 25" at Wikisource from one big item. However, that will a) result in thousands and thousands of values for the periodical item and b) it will prevent Wikisource having sitelinks for the individual volume and issue pages.
What to do about the series is also a concern. Many periodicals have multiple series, for example Once a Week (Q7091757) had four series. I notice United Nations Treaty Series Volume Number (P4222) exists, but a special property seems kind of overkill. Inductiveload (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Reprint of a journal[edit]

The 4 volumes of The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (Q105103351) (1854–59) were reprinted in 1970 (original OCLC 1587511, reprint 17761803). How should this be captured? Inductiveload (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Academic publisher preprint policies[edit]

The page on ENWP: w:List of academic publishers by preprint policy has a structured table of publisher policies. How would it be best to encode these into wikidata? A possible way of organising data on the item of a publisher (e.g. Wiley (Q1479654)):

  • Statement: permits (P8738) preprint (Q580922) (or possibly create item for "submission from / sharing of preprint")
    • Qualifier: prohibits (P8739) create items for common restrictions e.g. "commercial preprint server" or "version after peer review"
    • Qualifier: has quality (P1552) alternatively the inverse of the above e.g. "Non-commercial preprint server only" or "version before peer review only"
    • Qualifier: Not sure how to encode conditions such as "If preprint is CCBY, then must pay APC"
    • Qualifier: start time (P580) if people want to add in when different publishers/journals changed policy
    • Reference: quotation (P1683) if people want to quote the policy txt (along with reference URL (P854), obv.)

Please reply at w:Talk:List_of_academic_publishers_by_preprint_policy#Draft_wikidata_encoding to keep discussion centralised. Thanks in advance!. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Please centralize discussions about editing Wikidata in .. Wikidata, not Facebook or enwiki. --- Jura 09:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Periodicals as organizations vs venues: Number of items to create[edit]

In looking at the properties for periodicals as venues and periodicals as organizations, I am confused about how many items should be created. Is the section with properties for periodicals as organizations meant to show all of the properties that would exist in an item that is separate from the item for the periodical as venue? Up until now I have combined the properties in these two lists and put them into a single item for the periodical. I am now wondering if that is incorrect (though I have not yet seen an item for a periodical as an organization--only items for periodicals as venues).Mgrenci (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Examples of items that include both venue and organization properties: Q55627861 and Q94022449 include Founded by (P112). This is the organization property most likely to be relevant to the publication (venue) item.Mgrenci (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

An organization is a different thing to a periodical, so it'd seem natural to me to have separate items, especially since it's not unusual for a single organization to publish multiple things. However, in some cases, you may not care enough about the organization to make an item for it. Ghouston (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
In the case of newspapers, the two concepts have been conflated to the point that newspaper (Q11032) has been made a subclass of both business (Q4830453) and organization (Q43229), which is clearly in does not always apply (Q90177495) territory. Ghouston (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)