Wikidata:Property proposal/Doximity ID
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Doximity ID[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
Not done
| Description | MISSING |
|---|---|
| Represents | Doximity (Q5303699) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | human (Q5) |
| Allowed units | [a-zA-Z-_]+ |
| Example 1 | Laura H. Rosenberger (Q64416035) value laura-rosenberger-md |
| Example 2 | Bernard Fisher (Q4893126) value bernard-fisher-md |
| Example 3 | Wolfram Samlowski (Q8030195) value wolfram-samlowski-md |
| Source | https://www.doximity.com/ |
| 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]. |
| Number of IDs in source | 1 million |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Formatter URL | https://www.doximity.com/pub/$1 |
Motivation[edit]
Has a lot of profiles about publications / work experience about medical doctors in the US 1Veertje (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Support David (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)- Support Cwf97 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2019 (EST)
- Support --Trade (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose 
Neutral
In addition, it is only for the United States. There are more people known in the rest of the World than in one country. The number of identifiers will decrease drastically. Sorry.
conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838): date of death (P570). So for Christiaan Barnard (Q188803), Doximity ask me to create a new account ("Welcome, Christiaan Barnard", for someone who died 18 years ago.)
There is still a lot of items that are not affected. --Eihel (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Eihel: it's a CV platform like LinkedIn for doctors. Not everybody has to be notable on a platform for it to be useful link to include in the wikidata item. There a fair few country specific identifiers, that they are currently focused on expansion in the US is not an argument. Could you link to where you read the prompt for Christiaan Barnard? I don't see it. What do you mean by "a lot of items not being affected"? 1Veertje (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- @1Veertje: You do not understand me or maybe I misspoke myself. Already, there is no improvement since on the number of entries, compared to WM. I added a link "external links". You can see that only the enwiki has answers in number, the other wikis never have more than a dozen answers. The relationship with the United States is more obvious. If this network were valid for other countries, there would be (probably) enough entries to make a property. In addition, I spoke of notoriety: on enwiki, there are only about sixty replies and some of them have no relation with a human (Q5), but on publications. To make a Property, it is necessary to have 100 entries. My
jokeexample on Christiaan Barnard is bad, sorry (did not work in the US). That said, finding someone is complicated. You even created Laura H. Rosenberger (Q64416035) as an example for this occasion. Like w:en:Talk:List of social networking websites/Archive 8 this enwiki discussion page, we do not know the number of subscribers. Your link concerns information of 2017. So many reasons make me stay on my position: Oppose. —Eihel (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @1Veertje: You do not understand me or maybe I misspoke myself. Already, there is no improvement since on the number of entries, compared to WM. I added a link "external links". You can see that only the enwiki has answers in number, the other wikis never have more than a dozen answers. The relationship with the United States is more obvious. If this network were valid for other countries, there would be (probably) enough entries to make a property. In addition, I spoke of notoriety: on enwiki, there are only about sixty replies and some of them have no relation with a human (Q5), but on publications. To make a Property, it is necessary to have 100 entries. My
- @Eihel: it's a CV platform like LinkedIn for doctors. Not everybody has to be notable on a platform for it to be useful link to include in the wikidata item. There a fair few country specific identifiers, that they are currently focused on expansion in the US is not an argument. Could you link to where you read the prompt for Christiaan Barnard? I don't see it. What do you mean by "a lot of items not being affected"? 1Veertje (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Cwf97, Trade, 1Veertje: Proposal that has not moved for a long time and opened for 137 days: 
Not done. —Eihel (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- you mean that you not responding is a reason for you to get your way? wtf? There are plenty of career platforms like LinkedIn that are cachy with their data. There is still relevant information about the people who have an account.1Veertje (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @1Veertje: I understand what you write to me and you repeat to me "LinkedIn". I know what LinkedIn is, but you do not understand what "Doximity" is. Inside, there are doctors (MD/DO), but there are also pharmacists, assistants and nurses. In the last three careers, I do not think there are many Qs dedicated to them. Most of the entries on Doximity are made up of these last 3 careers, without counting the entries that are not human: hospitals, jobs, publications, etc. If I had to give my opinion on a LinkedIn property, I'm sure there would be more than 100 pages with people whose notoriety is not to be demonstrated. There, we rely on important doctors or who are rather researchers, that is to say, physicians who have notoriety or who wrote publications. For example, a family doctor or psychologist at the corner of the street or an osteo excluded from WP and WD. All of this means that your future property does not have enough identifier. When I find only sixty pages on WP on my last post, it is to tell you that your proposal does not meet the criteria required on WD. WD is not intended to accommodate all directories and it is already my 3rd posts on the same theme. If one day you propose a property for the site "the_professionals_of_clarinet_in_hula_ hoop.com", a site similar to LinkedIn, I will give you the same reply. If you have not yet understood, you have the opportunity to seek the advice of someone else. —Eihel (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's fairly sexist that you think nurses can't make an impact on the world. 1Veertje (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @1Veertje: First of all, if you want to talk to me, you can notify me. This nurse title is given by the site. Andrew Gottlieb and Angela Anthony are both on the same directory, but they do not have a page on WD. There is only you to find a sexist aspect. Is this all you have learned from everything I wrote? I'm surprised. In addition, WD is not a place to write "wtf?" or insults. For the rest, I do not believe that a nurse publishes articles on The Journal of the American Medical Association (Q1470970) or PLOS MEDICINE (Q1686921). —Eihel (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's fairly sexist that you think nurses can't make an impact on the world. 1Veertje (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @1Veertje: I understand what you write to me and you repeat to me "LinkedIn". I know what LinkedIn is, but you do not understand what "Doximity" is. Inside, there are doctors (MD/DO), but there are also pharmacists, assistants and nurses. In the last three careers, I do not think there are many Qs dedicated to them. Most of the entries on Doximity are made up of these last 3 careers, without counting the entries that are not human: hospitals, jobs, publications, etc. If I had to give my opinion on a LinkedIn property, I'm sure there would be more than 100 pages with people whose notoriety is not to be demonstrated. There, we rely on important doctors or who are rather researchers, that is to say, physicians who have notoriety or who wrote publications. For example, a family doctor or psychologist at the corner of the street or an osteo excluded from WP and WD. All of this means that your future property does not have enough identifier. When I find only sixty pages on WP on my last post, it is to tell you that your proposal does not meet the criteria required on WD. WD is not intended to accommodate all directories and it is already my 3rd posts on the same theme. If one day you propose a property for the site "the_professionals_of_clarinet_in_hula_ hoop.com", a site similar to LinkedIn, I will give you the same reply. If you have not yet understood, you have the opportunity to seek the advice of someone else. —Eihel (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)