Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Dexbot 15

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Approved--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dexbot 15[edit]

Dexbot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: Ladsgroup (talk • contribs • logs)

Task/s: Fixing SBN author ID (P396) and SBN books ID (P5485) format

Code: based on pywikibot

Function details: See Topic:Vpt0zsfl1zis83gj --Amir (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little note: the pertinent topic is Topic:Wpc8q4ihbewh3epu. --Epìdosis 16:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the task from "Fixing changing reference format" to "Fixing SBN author ID (P396) and SBN books ID (P5485) format", which is more precise. A bit of context: on February 3rd I opened Property talk:P396#Nuovo OPAC SBN e formato degli ID, proposing to change the format of the values of SBN author ID (P396) and SBN books ID (P5485) removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining "\" because before the end of February the website of OPAC SBN (Q105086090) will be renewed and the IDs with the current format will result in link rot. @Jura1: proposed to keep P396 and P5485 with the current IDs and create new properties for the new format of the IDs, while 9 users (@Alexmar983, Bargioni, Patafisik, Carlobia, Taniamaio, Elena moz: @Divudi85, Alessandra.Moi, Alessandra Boccone:) supporting my proposal of reformatting the existing properties, which implied the following groups of edits:

  1. for all P396 main values (https://w.wiki/4nZe), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\RAVV\020128" > "RAVV020128") - e.g.
  2. for all P5485 values (https://w.wiki/4nZh), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\FOG\E009899" > "FOGE009899") - e.g.
  3. for all P396 in references (https://w.wiki/4ni9), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\CFIV\015257" > "CFIV015257") and simultaneously remove from these references all the subject named as (P1810) listed in the fourth column (basically, all the values of P1810 not containing a "," are imprecise and should have never been added; this is the occasion to remove them) - e.g.
  4. for all P5485 in references (https://w.wiki/4nZy), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\UBO\0101688" > "UBO0101688") - e.g.

I summarized the general motivations for and against reformatting in a table which I posted at 20:03 of February 6th; furthermore, three motivations are specific for this case (I copy them):

  1. a relevant part of Italian library systems has only been using the short (“new”) format instead of the long (“present”) format
  2. VIAF has always been using the short (“new”) format (e.g. https://viaf.org/processed/ICCU%7CCFIV023920) in the ICCU processed pages
  3. reformatting is supported by ICCU (which manages the IDs) itself

As I said, "Since a decision has to be taken (possibly before the dismissal of the old OPAC, which according to ICCU will happen during February causing link rot) and no decision on this matter could be unanimous, as the discussion shows, IMHO there is a sufficient, although not unanimous, consensus for the solution of reformatting; and, anyway, the other possible solution (new properties) has a narrower support". @Ladsgroup: considered the consensus sufficient and today started reformatting with Dexbot; however, Jura1 suggested continuing the discussion for another week and making an apposite request for permission for the bot. So the discussion can go on here. --Epìdosis 15:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there are three separate questions:
    • 1. should P396 be repurposed? (discussion ongoing at Property talk:P396)
    • 2. if P396 is repurposed, if and how should we normalize references with an access date in the past.
    • 3. is the bot correctly doing the proposed task?
The open question for this discussion seems to be mainly (2.) --- Jura 16:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the questions. For 1), I think I have answered above. For 2), since the two forms of the IDs (longer and shorter) have always coexisted, as the fact VIAF has always used both of them demonstrates, I see no problem in simply changing the format of the ID; the removal of all subject named as (P1810) not containing "," has the following reason: all these references where added by Reinheitsgebot using labels contained in MnM catalog (https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/#/catalog/58, existing until last August), which wasn't correct because these labels had been normalised for a better use in MnM (using the form "Name Surname" and removing qualifications) but had never been present in that precise form in SBN entries (which always use the inverse form, so "Surname, Name" or "Surname, Name <qualification>"). For 3), the edits done as of now are correct. --Epìdosis 16:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Dexbot_15&oldid=1576962380"