[01:55:34] are unregistered users able to create entries [02:01:09] yes [02:07:19] Is that a good idea [02:31:28] Dragonfly6-7, Looking, I only see about 50 items deleted yesterday as 'does not meet the notability policy' [02:31:57] 64, actually [08:49:05] so for P6216 (copyright status), if I put Q19652 (public domain), qualified by P459 (determination method) → published more than 95 years ago [08:50:11] is there a canonical way to indicate that the relevant date is 1923 in that claim, or is it supposed to be implicit because the item as a whole has P571/inception → "July 1923"? [08:50:49] it's not necessarily always obvious what the date should be [08:52:23] for example, if the data was based on author death, but the author that died last waived their copyright, you wouldn't be able to just traverse each of the "author/editor/translator/illustrator/contributor" for the edition and the work and find the latest one [09:36:41] actually, cross posted to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help_talk:Copyrights#Qualifying_a_copyright_claim_with_the_relevant_date for wider discussion [16:52:44] inductiveload, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P3893 [16:53:27] Jarnsax: sure but that's the date it goes into the public domain [16:53:54] As opposed to the date used for that calculation [16:54:26] Yeah, I haven't seen a way to state it 'the other way' [16:55:49] So much of this stuff is incompletely modelled [16:55:50] though 'inception' should generally be set to the year of creation [16:55:53] Right [16:57:02] Like, there are literally thousands of properties but I'm not sure there is a single class of item that is consistently modelled [16:57:32] In a way that allows complete data-driven processes [16:58:10] My experience has been that lots of classes of things are documented somewhere, but that most people don't follow/aren't aware of/are confused as fuck by the 'schema' [16:59:14] Generally I actually 'look at' the property item, the constraints in particular, to figure out exactly how to use it. [17:01:08] But yeah, I've tried to figure out exactly the same thing (how to explicitly state the effective date for the beginning of a copyright term) and kinda gave up. [17:01:46] inductiveload, This is what I have been messing with... https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Jarnsax/Higher_education_in_Canada [17:02:18] Part of the issue, I think, is tons of data imported from wikipedias, some of which isn't really right. [17:03:24] Data incompleteness or incorrectness is one thing [17:04:03] Like, lots of colleges are listed as 'affiliated with' various organizations, when they are 'members of'.... affiliation means something completely else in the context of a college (it means they are are 'associated school' of a univeraity) [17:04:23] But being actually unable to effectively add the data because no one actually knows how it should be done is frustrating [17:04:56] Oh yes, but much better than it used to be. [17:05:46] At least {{Cite wikidata}} is now a thing, instead of it being impossible to access an item that wasn't directly linked to the page you're editing. [17:05:47] 10[1] 04https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Cite_wikidata [17:06:12] lol, not on wikidata, bot [17:06:48] Mm, I'm still working on a schema for periodicals that can work at Wikisource [17:06:48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q [17:09:20] I actually got on the organizing colleges thing because trying to link journal article authors to their affiliations was borked [17:09:56] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Inductiveload/Sandbox/wd [17:10:32] Copyright is an adjacent data model, but will be needed too [17:10:42] Randomly.... [17:11:16] Lol fun times [17:12:20] When you go from Hathi to OCLC, in the description sometimes it will give you another OCLC, if you look at that one, in it's description it will give the first OCLC but also the LCCN [17:12:23] Also why periodicals use both part of and part of series [17:12:41] (the LCCN is also in the Hathi MARC data) [17:13:08] Is one a work item and one an edition? [17:13:20] it's called DLC in Marc data [17:13:25] The work and editions are very confused [17:13:36] No, one is 'print version' and one is 'electronic' [17:14:13] (I mean, the LCCN is called DLC in MARC data [17:16:25] What I mean, exactly... https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003910311 -> https://www.worldcat.org/title/catalog-of-copyright-entries/oclc/6467863 [17:16:59] Oh right [17:17:02] Yeah same for the IA [17:17:15] under 'additional physical format' it points at https://www.worldcat.org/title/catalog-of-copyright-entries/oclc/561797039 which tells you DLC 06035347 [17:17:44] The ia lists an electronic edition for oclc [17:17:53] https://lccn.loc.gov/06035347 [17:18:26] The IA's data accuracy is totally random depending on who scanned it. [17:19:17] Yep [17:19:24] It's a huge mess [17:20:26] They really should integrate wikidata [17:20:38] Maybe I should make a user script that does that [17:21:32] Actually all bibliographic DBs are a mess [17:23:59] One thing I have found useful, when looking at the Library of Congress catalog for 'older' stuff is to actually look in the NUC. [17:24:40] A lot of the 'online' cards are not very good copied of what was on the actual printed card, which is directly copied in the NUC [17:25:23] this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_Catalog [17:26:54] https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009128864 and it's supplements are also useful, but it's just a list (used to prepare the NUC, I think) [17:28:09] The NUC will actually tell you (at least, when it was complied) what libraries held the book. [17:37:41] when the loc catalog doesn't actually have the bibliographic data (pages etc) it's usually on the card and just not copied. [21:34:39] Jarnsax: might as well get a jump on the process: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/relevant_date_for_copyright [23:27:24] nice [23:27:48] registration id is also a nice idea