A section in the talk page associated with the article in question would seem to solve this (definitely real) problem? - assuming that a would-be editor was aware of the talk page. Alternatively, you could propose a generic property with a text field that could be added to items on an as-needed basis without any change to the current software. Again though, the challenge would be getting the information in front of the user/editor at the right point in time.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes I have noticed this need for use notes, but it is specific to > properties, isn't it? I see it in things such as choosing what to put in > the "genre" property of an artwork. It would be nice to have some sort of > pop-up that you can fill with more than what you put in. For example I get > easily confused when I address the relative (as in kinship) properties; > "father of the subject" is clear, but what about cousin/nephew etc.? You > need more explanation room than can be stuffed in the label field to fit in > the drop down. I have thought about this, but don't see any easy solution > besides what you have done. > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, James Heald <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item >> descriptions. >> >> For example, on Q6581097 (male) >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097 >> the (English) description reads: >> "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For >> groups of males use with subclass of (P279)." >> >> I have added some myself recently, working on items in the administrative >> structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire) >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112 >> I have changed the description to now read >> "ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative >> non-metropolitan county)" >> >> These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often found >> at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those hat-notes >> can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on Wikidata, >> for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu. >> >> But... >> >> Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users >> in contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or to >> feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what >> different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will >> typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct thing >> corresponding to it. (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for >> example). >> >> So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do >> really belong in the general description field ? >> >> Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created >> for them? >> >> The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results >> and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate >> data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL >> service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific meaning, >> better for third-party and downstream applications. >> >> Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking everything >> into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to take a >> step forward from it? >> >> -- James. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
