Wikidata:Property proposal/onscreen participant

recorded participant

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Done: recorded participant (P11108) (Talk and documentation)

Description	agent taking an active role as a participant in a nonfiction moving image or other recorded work
Represents	onscreen participant (Q104879379)
Data type	Item
Domain	moving image (Q10301427), non-fiction film (Q24960157), factual television program (Q5428822)
Allowed values	Q number
Example 1	RBG (Q54829190) has recorded participant Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Q11116)
Example 2	RBG (Q54829190) has recorded participant Nina Totenberg (Q7038136)
Example 3	Shadow Girl (Q26911180) has recorded participant Maria Teresa Larrain (Q26911182)
Example 4	Burroughs: The Movie (Q16249038) has recorded participant Allen Ginsberg (Q6711)
Example 5	The Great Math Mystery (Q56604860) has recorded participant Mario Livio (Q1898912)
Example 6	Chasing the Moon (Q85751667) has recorded participant Buzz Aldrin (Q2252)
Example 7	Chasing the Moon (Q85751667) has recorded participant Michael Collins (Q104859)
Example 8	Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness (Q88306935) has recorded participant Carole Baskin (Q88495947)
Example 9	Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness (Q88306935) has recorded participant Joe Exotic (Q83688347)
Example 10	Grey Gardens (Q2104352) has recorded participant Edith Bouvier Beale (Q535330)
Example 11	Grey Gardens (Q2104352) has recorded participant Edith Ewing Bouvier Beale (Q5338542)
Example 12	Shut Up & Sing (Q2905624) has recorded participant The Chicks (Q142636)
Example 13	The Last Dance (Q85807688) has recorded participant Chicago Bulls (Q128109)
Example 14	From Tree to Shining Tree (Q65109665) → Jennifer Frazer (Q75196849), Suzanne W. Simard (Q26702907), Roy Halling (Q14173137)
Planned use	Will add property to nonfiction moving image works as they are encountered; or will change existing property cast member (P161) used on many records to the onscreen participant property, because these people are not actors in a film or television program
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	cast member (P161), contributor to the creative work or subject (P767), participant (P710), talk show guest (P5030)

Motivation

This proposal originated in a discussion on the Wikidata Telegram channel. There isn't an ideal property to indicate the onscreen participants in a nonfiction film or television program. These are not cast member, as they are not actors in a fictional work. Typically they are interviewees or commenters in documentaries and other nonfiction films and television programs. Having the specific property "onscreen participant" would enable an exact explanation of their role in relation to a moving image work. This property exists in RDA: see "has onscreen participant agent" (http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/P20279) and its subelements "has onscreen participant person" (http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/P20363), "has onscreen participant collective agent" (http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/P20422), "has onscreen participant corporate body" (http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/P20481), and "has onscreen participant family" (http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/P20540). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment I’m wondering about the on-screen scope, as this proposal reminds me of a conversation we had over at WikiProject Podcasts: should we use contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) vs talk show guest (P5030) for participants (interviewees etc.) to podcasts? We sort of decided talk show guest (P5030) was the best fit − although a podcast about British cultural heritage hardly is a talk show ;) ; however the intent of that proposed property would fit the need quite well, if not for the on-screen restriction. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I'm onboard! Moebeus (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, we do have talk show guest (P5030). --- Jura 19:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  
•  Support The property would be very helpful for differentiating actors from onscreen participant Rockpeterson (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Movies has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --- Jura 19:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Support This will be a useful property. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  
•  Support This seems like it would be useful for differentiating people in news reports, video footage, etc. from actors playing a part. 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  
•  Support--2le2im-bdc (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose I don't really see how we could do the proposed "sorting" efficiently and avoid having to re-do it frequently. Currently, these people are already identified as participants with P161 (not as actors) and generally referenced with various sources that also do not differentiate as above. Already the difference between cast and "voice actor" is sometimes hard to maintain. --- Jura 09:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In almost all of the items that I have looked at, these people are identified as "cast member". "Participant" is too broad and could mean anyone participating in the creation of a film, not just those appearing on camera. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, participant with P161. --- Jura 23:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I've thought about a property like this for quite a while. For documentary films, interviews and other non-fictional content, cast member (P161) doesn't seem ideal. Using character role (P453)self (Q18086706) kind of works, but doesn't quite convey that the person isn't playing some kind of role. Using a different property could do that.
  On the other hand pretty much all film/tv databases out there don't make any such distinctions and just list all such on-screen participants as cast members. Which makes importing or comparing data more difficult if our data is split among several properties. But having more granularity in our data isn't necessarily a bad thing, we are already doing that with properties like presenter (P371), voice actor (P725) or talk show guest (P5030).
  Although I think instead of creating a new property, we could also repurpose/expand talk show guest (P5030) instead to not include just talk show guests but all kinds of on-screen participants. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If we change this, I think either way, it would be good to see a plan how to implement this fairly large change, before creating the property. @UWashPrincipalCataloger, Moebeus, 2le2im-bdc, Clements.UWLib, Rockpeterson: @Emwille: what do you think? what's your plan? @Kam Solusar: --- Jura 10:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kam Solusar: Re:repurposing talk show guest (P5030): one issue is that talk show guest (P5030) is currently used for guests which are *not* "on-screen", because it’s media without a screen (podcasts and radio shows). Jean-Fred (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Talk show guest and onscreen participant are very different things. As has been pointed out, talk show guests are not necessarily on screen in a visual resource, they can be guests on radio shows and podcasts. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Jura makes a good point about maintaining differences and dealing with onscreen participants already identified as cast members. This seems to be an issue that will come up whenever we need more specific properties for roles people play in a creative work. How are these more granular new properties usually dealt with in Wikidata? I don't see how adding "participant" with P161 would sidestep that issue, exactly. "Participant" doesn't add a meaningful distinction because it's so broad, but there would still be maintenance. I don't think repurposing talk show guest (P5030) would be ideal either, because talk show guests are often, as Jean-Fred points out, not on-screen. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I do agree with Jura as it will be a hard and jumbled task to differentiate people as actors and on screen participant and there is no valid source to confirm if he/she is of either category . If we find out a proper method of sorting then this property would be really helpful for proposing a detailed database of the documentary/shows . Rockpeterson (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still be better to input new items with a much more correct property that editors could use instead of cramming people into "cast member"? Why perpetuate this problem, even if it is not immediately possible to correct already existing items? Editors could correct records as they encounter them or need to edit them further. I agree that it might be hard to identify all the statements that need to be corrected, but "cast member" is simply wrong, and that is what is being used primarily now. Perhaps it is possible to gather all nonfiction moving image works that have a cast member property and work on cleaning them up. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes its a great idea @UWashPrincipalCataloger: , it will be more efficient and helpful if we make a project to gather all nonfiction moving image works sort them in years(period) and work on them in a group so that the task will be completed faster . If you agree I am ready to work Rockpeterson (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be willing to work on this, and I think some of our media catalogers would also. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe you could start out with the currently existing model and once you have a clear view on how it could be implemented, come back to this proposal. --- Jura 12:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a good idea to have two approaches for the same information nor creating a new one without a clear view on how to implement it. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current approach. It may be that some interpret existing statements incorrectly, but that is essentially their problem. As mentioned, participants are added with the property cast member (P161) and qualified if wanted. We need to make sure an approach can be implemented on the practical level in Wikidata.
  The project has already suffered much in the field of books from people coming here trying to spell out the theoretical ideal approach and, 8 years down the road, WikiProject Books still in an non-ideal shape. Let's make sure we don't undo WikiProject Movies in the same way. --- Jura 13:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • But @Jura1:, cast members are actors in a fictional work. The cast member property is defined as pertaining to actors. Onscreen participants are not actors. Using the cast member property is not correct for these kinds of participants in nonfictional works who appear as themselves and are not acting. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I understand that this is your point of view. It just not current modeling practice, not here and not at even larger projects we rely on. --- Jura 14:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • It should be current modeling practice. I'd be willing to help with a sorting project for implementation if that helps. Cast members and onscreen participants are not the same thing. Wikipedia defines cast members as actors. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
      • This is not Telegram or Wikipedia. You might want to read what I and others wrote about that above. What's needed is a sustainable plan. --- Jura 04:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support It seems to me that this property would help us streamline current modelling practices in this area (<cast member><role><themselves> vs. <participant><has role><xy>. --Beat Estermann (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Pteropotamus (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Beat Estermann, Pteropotamus: what is your proposal for the open question? --- Jura 11:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Jala360 13:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Not sure what the disagreement is. If cast member is not appropriate we need a term that IS appropriate, and this one seems like it would nicely cover many current problems. -- Categerhart (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A property for this is already available and used in line with similar properties we are mapping from other leading databases in the field. If you need to query the label, you can add aliases to the existing property. Apparently, some UWashington staff members disagree with the current approach, but still haven't presented a viable way to implement another approach. Maybe, there is just a confusion between Wikidata property, Wikidata label and "term". --- Jura 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It would not be appropriate to add "onscreen participant" as an alias of "cast member". They have very different semantics. See below for a possible viable way to implement separate properties for participants in non-fiction works versus cast members in fictional works. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, it's the current approach. I understand that you disagree with this. I suppose you are aware of the problems of Wikidata:WikiProject Books. It's advised by 100+ specialists on how to implement it in Wikidata, but 8 years down the line, it still hasn't happened and WMF now considers another project to handle this instead. Maybe you can help them sort it out? In any case, we don't want WikiProject Books problems to proliferate into Movies, don't we? --- Jura 11:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I'd like to propose a way to take on implementation if this proposal is approved. It would address statements already in existence for "cast members" in non-fiction films and television. I used a set of queries for works with the targeted genres and sub-genres (query results for non-fiction films, factual television, reality television, and game shows) to accumulate all the statements we would like to change into an OpenRefine project and posted a copy in a Google spreadsheet here. There are a little over 35,000 statements. I propose that a group of volunteers such as myself, Categerhart, UWashPrincipalCataloger, and Rockpeterson review the proposed changes, in consultation with WikiProject Movies, then make the changes in OpenRefine/QuickStatements after submitting them for bot review (this is enough to require bot review, right?). As for maintaining the distinctions between cast members and onscreen participants during large data imports from databases which do not make the same distinction, I would be willing to help brainstorm implementation ideas to make the distinction during the import process. I don't know who is doing most of that already. Maybe folks involved with WikiProject Movies? What do you think Jura? --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That is a start.
    If it goes beyond of what's in the queries, can you store the lists somewhere onsite (or on WMF site)? e.g. Wikidata:Sandbox/1. Contributors should be able to edit without having to use offsite resources.
    I think there are three or four distinct issues to address:
    (1) how to deal with existing statements: sorting as you suggest can address this. How does it go beyond checking genre?
    (2) how to deal with new statements going forward
    (3) how to ensure people can easily add incremental contributions
    (4) how bulk imports or reference additions by bot should work going forward (as most other databases just use one property "cast"). --- Jura 11:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Support What is the hold up on this one? I have a ton of imagineNative shorts coming up that would be in dire need of this property. -Yupik (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment can we see a plan how to implement and maintain this? As it's not compatible with Wikidata's current approach (and that of a series of references frequently quoted), an outline would help. If, in the meantime, the proposer/supporters haven't been active or are no longer active in Wikidata, maybe we should close this as stale. --- Jura 17:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• @UWashPrincipalCataloger, Moebeus, Jean-Frédéric, Rockpeterson, 2le2im-bdc: @Clements.UWLib, Kam Solusar, Yupik, Beat Estermann, Pteropotamus: @Jala360, Categerhart: I'd marked this as ready but Jura continues to oppose, and suggests you may be "no longer active in Wikidata". Jura did raise 4 "issues" just above, so it would probably be helpful if you directly address them. Thanks. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Just for the record: I still edit from time to time :) Moebeus (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  • How would you address the above? Given that I had to clean up something else the proposer (or their associated project) added to Wikidata, I would be more comfortable if other participants of WikiProject Movies would come up with a plan. --- Jura 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    
    

  I also edit routinely, and although I don't have the expertise to address Jura concerns about batch loading, I continue to think we need this new property regardless of whether others out there do not use it. As Crystal says, there are ways around that which could be used to fix mistakes periodically. I would be willing to do clean-up as needed as well.Categerhart (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Frankly, I don't think I have seen you and some other participants in this discussion around WikiProject movies. In the meantime, you can use P161. --- Jura 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I edit all the time, albeit it less right now since I have relatives visiting. The suggestion that we don't is frankly weird. Like Categerhart, I don't batch upload, so I can't address that concern. P161 does not reflect what is needed in spite of the persistent insistence it be used in this property's place. -Yupik (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You are correct, I'm am mainly active in the Telegram music group, but just because I haven't become active in the media group does not make my opinion any less worthwhile. There are many similarities between music and media and if a similar problem came up in the music group, where a term was incorrectly being used because of bad batch loading, us music folks would figure out how to fix it, not just ignore it and let the data continue to be incorrect, or not useful. Using a term like participant seems to not give us the granularity that we need. It would be like using performer instead of pianist, or singer. I still support this proposal. None of Jura's arguments negate the fact that there is a constituency that needs this term.Categerhart (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • P161 is the current way of modeling it at Wikidata (see the comment by a highly active contributor to Movies on Wikidata above). If you prefer not to tackle the open questions, maybe other users can. --- Jura 04:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
      
      

• @Clements.UWLib: has offered a means to clean up existing items and our group at the University of Washington is willing to tackle this. We are daily editors of Wikidata and some of us are film and video catalogers. Once the property has been created we will plan a remediation project and will involve participants of Wikiproject Movies if there are some there willing to participate. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's easier to outline the plan and address the questions on separate page if you prefer not to do it here. If you need a property to simulate your approach, you can use Sandbox-Item (P369). We need to avoid a repeat of "Haligonians" (see Wikidata talk:WikiProject PCC Wikidata Pilot) where it was left to others to clean up. --- Jura 04:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

    Respectfully, @Jura1, the plan we've laid out seems more than sufficient for approving the proposal. I am hesitant to sink further time into a more detailed implementation plan before this proposal is approved, because it seems that you are intent on blocking it regardless and will be ready with endless "open questions" as previous ones are answered. It seems to me that you are blocking a widely supported and needed property because you have disagreed with and undone unrelated work by people associated with the PCC Wikidata Pilot. I don't think these other unrelated disagreements should block this proposal...as an open linked data project, this type of gatekeeping is counterproductive. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support — MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose While the scope tries really hard to be generic (“nonfiction moving image work”), I don’t understand that scope is restricted to "on-screen" − as this excludes non-screen mediated media such as podcasts and radio. I was told that these can use participant (P710) for the same purpose − but surely if P710 can be used just fine for non-fiction radio, why couldn’t it be used for non-fiction video − what would be the actual difference between screen-involved media and non-screen involved media to justify a difference of treatment? Re-reading the discussion, the core-issue seems to have been cast member (P161) vs. new-property ; but has the potential use of creator (P170) participant (P710) been discussed at all? (and if that’s a concern: there shouldn’t be an ambiguity 'in-media' vs 'out-media' because the latter is covered by contributor to the creative work or subject (P767). Jean-Fred (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Onscreen participants are not always creators. Expanding the scope to include radio or podcast or other recorded media participants would expand implementation challenges, but I would be open to supporting such a change if @Jean-Frédéric or others were willing to help with implementation for non-video media. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Clements.UWLib: I had a typo in the latter part of my comment (now fixed) − I meant participant (P710), not P170. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  This proposal originally came about as a way to have an equivalent property in Wikidata to the one used by catalogers who use the RDA (Resource Description and Access) international cataloging standard. RDA has the elements (properties) "onscreen participant agent", "onscreen participant person", "onscreen participant collective agent", "onscreen participant corporate body", and "onscreen participant family". And the other main reason for the proposal was that onscreen participants were frequently stated as cast members in Wikidata, which is fundamentally incorrect. The use of participant (P710) is possible but agents participate in media works in many different ways, including many roles off camera. To lump onscreen participants in the broader category of participants would obscure the fact that these persons appear in the film, video, or television program. We need a way to distinguish people that appear on camera from actors/cast members of fictional works and from off-camera participants. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  @UWashPrincipalCataloger: Thanks for re-summarizing the motivation behind this proposal, but that’s not what I’m asking: I do see the point about P610, and I was aware that this proposal has its roots in RDA (while I’m not particularly familiar with that standard myself) − I don’t dispute that. But this is not addressing the scope issue (which was raised in the very first comment on this proposal): the exact same points about actors in fictional works vs non-actors in non-fiction works apply to radio and podcasts, yet the proposal specifically declines to address it.

  (As for RDA, I would not know why they overlooked non-screen media in their standard, but if we agree that’s an oversight then I would see no reason to replicate it).

  Thanks for voicing the issues you see with using the generic P710 − but I don’t need to be convinced: you’re the one who suggested I should use P710 for podcasts and radio shows − to paraphrase, wouldn’t « lumping “on-tape participants” in the broader category of participants obscure the fact that these persons intervene in the podcast or radio show »? (there certainly are both fictional podcasts with cast members, as well as non-fictional ones with “on-tape participants”).

  My opinion is that when proposing media-related properties on Wikidata, we cannot spare ourselves the thinking beyond our media type of interest − properties made for TV should also more or less work for radio, or songs, or games, or anything else.

  Jean-Fred (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  If we cannot get full community agreement for this proposal (although I'm not sure why only one or two opposes should hold up a property that a much larger majority of commenters supports and is waiting to use), I can envision using participant (P710) for onscreen participants, with a qualifier object has role (P3831) = onscreen participant (Q104879379). This proposed property would be a subproperty of participant (P710), and I do think that it would be used so much that it would be useful to have as a separate property and it would be simpler to search for a specific property rather than for P710 with a qualifier with the value Q104879379. Moving image resources do have some unique characteristics after all, and there are precedents elsewhere for specific properties rather than more general ones with qualifiers. For example, proposals for inker (P10836) and penciller (P10837) were recently approved, even though illustrator (P110) and contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) existed. This is because comics have particular characteristics different from other printed publications, and separate properties for them benefit both creators of comics items and make searching for these types of agents easier. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It’s not so much about full community agreement, nor is this supposed to be a majority vote ; the question is whether the detractors to this property have a point or not and whether it has been addressed. Obviously I myself do think I have a point :-) , and frankly I don’t think you’re quite addressing it ; maybe another property creator will judge that I don’t have a point, or that you have adequately addressed it, and go ahead and create this property.

  To clarify yet again: I am not against this property − I’m actually quite convinced by your arguments − but I don’t understand the restricted scope. Sure, audio media are not the same thing as moving image media, but I don’t think this matters insofar as to model the non-fictional people who are recorded in these works. I don’t find “because RDA does like that” very compelling either.

  (I feel very strongly about this because I think it’d be very problematic to go all “each media is special and needs its own properties” − it’s true to a degree (I don’t have a problem with inker (P10836) or penciller (P10837)) but only to a certain extent ; I think we have more to gain by finding their common features and I do fear unnecessary fragmentation between media types).

  I do agree that this languishing in limbo for over a year and a half is not ideal.

  Jean-Fred (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Can you suggest a term that would encompass all media? I am having difficulty coming up with something that would sound suitable, and that would be clear that it covers participants on camera and on audio other than cast members and not other behind the scenes participants. "onscreen or on-audio participant"? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for considering my idea :-) How about something like “recorded participant” or “participant in the recording” ? Jean-Fred (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

   Support with the now expanded scope. Thank you :) Jean-Fred (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Question It is only indirectly relevant to this proposal, but not completely unimportant: I just hat a look at cast members of The Queen (Q223367). It seems that this film does also feature archival footage of Camilla, Diana, etc (currently expressed via name of the character role (P4633) "Self (archival footage)". It does not really fit this proposed property (it is a fiction film using archival footage and they do not actively participate), but it does not fit cast member (P161), either (they are not actively participating as actor, the film simply features archival footage of them). As documentaries also use archival footage, this use may be relevant for documentaries, too - I guess that people would tend to use this proposed property to indicate people shown in archive material of non-fiction films. How should we deal with people appearing onscreen in archival footage? Should this property be expanded to include these, too? Should another property be used (e.g. depicts (P180), possibly with a qualifier to make clear that they are depicted using archival footage)? In my opinion fiction and non-fiction films should use the same property to indicate people appearing in archival footage. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Support — JordanTimothyJames (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• @UWashPrincipalCataloger, Jean-Frédéric: I adjusted the label and description in English as discussed above (can one of you fix the French? I just removed the French label that had been proposed). Does this seem ok to all now? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, looks good to me! Jean-Fred (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I marked as Ready. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith, UWashPrincipalCataloger, Clements.UWLib:  Done as recorded participant (P11108). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)