Wikidata:Property proposal/ArchiWebture ID

ArchiWebture ID[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Done: ArchiWebture ID (P7945) (Talk and documentation)

Description	identifier for an architect on the ArchiWebture website
Represents	ArchiWebture (Q84259431)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	human (Q5), organization (Q43229)
Allowed values	\d+
Example 1	Jean Bossu (Q3170857) → 4467
Example 2	Paul Friesé (Q542879) → 20940
Example 3	Renée Gailhoustet (Q3427144) → 29278
Source	https://archiwebture.citedelarchitecture.fr/voc/protagonistes
External links	Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL	https://archiwebture.citedelarchitecture.fr/voc/protagonistes?protid=$1
Country	France (Q142)

Motivation[edit]

This new Wikidata property for authority control for architects (Q56216473) would improve our coverage of Architecture of France (Q2398144). Thierry Caro (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject France. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Le Passant (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Neutral I'm not so fond about linking to what are basically bare search results with no data readily available... At least in the first 2 examples there's a link to the archive fund that prominently displays a really useful bio (though it's 2 clicks away). In the 3rd example however, the user has no other choice than ticking the box and launching yet another search with hardly convincing results. Also, while the property is advertised as Wikidata property for authority control for architects (Q56216473) applying to human (Q5), there are many entries not pertaining to that domain such as 61485, 5243, 61013 or 17903. So, while the site clearly features some interesting content, I'm wondering whether the property as proposed is really consistent? --Nono314 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nono314: OK. Thanls for the review. I have added organization (Q43229) in the domain field to make things clearer regarding the fact that it does not only cover humans. As for the rest, I believe it is a minor problem. We have many properties that do not have any associated website and thus a huge amount of IDs not linking to readily available web content. Here you actually get to see something and all it requires for important content to show up is literally one or sometimes two extra clicks, to tick a box and validate. I guess it's better than nothing appearing at all, isn't it? Thierry Caro (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thierry Caro:Yes, we have a few external identifiers without formatters. It could be very useful if we had another property for, say, buildings that it could be used to cross-check. The fact is, I know you're usually proposing properties to feed your templates (like base-archi) and my comment was quite heavily based on that context, which may be too narrow.