Talk:Q36578

Autodescription — Integrated Authority File (Q36578)

description: German National Library authority file for personal names, subject headings and corporate bodies

Useful links:

Pretty display of data  (with Wikidata:Reasonator)
Pretty display of data (with Wikidata:Sqid)
View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
Scholia
Report on constraint conformation of “Integrated Authority File” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
Number of statements about Integrated Authority File by property (query)
All claims about Integrated Authority File (query)
List of items with same label (query)
List of lexemes with sense Integrated Authority File (query)

See also

This documentation is generated using {{Item documentation}}.

next/previous[edit]

What sense is in "next/previous" properties? I feel that we need to move to model with one property (like part of (P361)) with qualifiers "next/previous". --Infovarius (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The precursors of GND do not more exist, so they can't be a part of GND. If a company A still exists it might merge with company B and still be the precursor of company C that has nothing to do with company B. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So this is about temporal precursors. But what should they have in common? Authority files? German? Ruled by the same organisation? So the main question: in what sequence they are next/previous? --Infovarius (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happens all the time. People start a "new" project but of cause they don't want to start at point zero. The GND is a new authority file but it's started with data taken from multiple sources like the PND (authority files for persons).

follows (P155): PND, GKD and SWD are closed (edited by the German National Library).

followed by (P156): The successor GND is doing their job (edited by multiple institutions incl. the German National Library).

An alternative way would be to keep the old authority files and work together under a name like PGS United Authorites. In this case we would not use follows (P155) but part of (P361). --Kolja21 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

birthdate[edit]

was unsourced here, but was added to wikidata over my removal there (after it was imported from en-wiki, where it was unsourced). this is a crazy quilt of unsourced claims. terrible. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

inception (P571): It only needs a one second Google research to find more than one reliable source. BTW: Please take a look a the history of the item before making statements like "imported from en-wiki" (what is wrong). --Kolja21 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is that reliable source? Are you familiar with WP:CIRCULAR? What kind of garbage dump is that place?? Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that WP is no reliable source and that WD is often used as a garbage dump. But 1) this statement was not imported from en-wiki. 2) There is a source [1]. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]