On 6 January 2018 at 01:34, Charles Horn <charles.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a relatively recent contributor to Wikidata, I have been struggling to > understand the objections to the Black Lunch Table's use of the catalog > property and the points of view behind this discussion. Understandably you may not be aware that this is a fork of discussions on Wikidata, where several of the points you raise have already been addressed. See: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Artist_of_Black_Lunch_Table and: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P972#Abuse_of_this_property_for_original_research > Q28781198:Black Lunch Table is P31:instance of Q21025364:WikiProject > The objection is that anything entered into P972:Catalog MUST be > P31:instance of Q2352616:catalog > > Is that it? No. While that is the case, it is also true that "catalogue (P972)" is defined as "Either a) catalog where the item appears (used as qualifier for catalog code (P528)), or b) catalog of an exhibition (Q464980)" No-one contends that 'b'; applies, and the absence of P528 values fails 'a'. There are also issues of notability concerning many of the items created. these should be addressed by evidence (i.e. citations), but instead we are being given argument by authority. Furthermore, there are issues around the ambiguity of the items created for such people: "Jane Doe, artist, female" could refer to more than one person. With no URL, external ID or other value to differentiate them from each other, these items cannot eb sued meaningfully by third parties. > It seems clear that the Black Lunch Table Wiki Project has a list of artists > they are interested in, so I consider that the Black Lunch Table catalog is > real thing. Does it meet our notability requirements? How? Indeed does it exist? Where? In what form? How can I see it? If the answer to these latter questions is "on Wikidata", then the argument is circular. > Perhaps this raises questions about whether stubs or placeholder entries are > acceptable on Wikidata? We already have the answer; the notability policy. It is generally very inclusive - far more so than Wikipedia's - so the egregious failure of BLT community to demonstrate notability for many of the items they are creating is telling. > Last thing, apparently consensus advice was given to use P972:Catalog in > this way So we're told. Where is it evidenced? I for one don't find any clarity about what was intended, in the discussion in which I participated, which was a proposal for a property for the supposed catalogue's unique identifiers - identifiers which it now turns out do not exist. As I indicated above, discussion is ongoing on Wikidata. I suggest that further discussion take place there, rather than on this list, as on Wikidata it will carry more wight in deciding consensus -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata