Property talk:P1415
identifier used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Type Q5, Q13002315, Q95074, Q16334295, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Item P21, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Item P569, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Item P570, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1415#Label in 'en' language, search, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
@Magnus Manske, Charles Matthews, Jakec: I think we have a glitch here - just realised that www.oxforddnb.com/public/dnb/XXXXX.html as originally suggested isn't an appropriate link; this only works if a free version of the article is up (and these tend to be temporary, rotating weekly). The actual articles are located at www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/XXXXX if we're using the "short" ODNB numbers as at Q430712 or www.oxforddnb.com/index/XXXXX/ (note trailing slash) if we're using the long 101-prefixed OBIN numbers as at Q1063507. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- ...in fact, unless my browser is going weird, they all seem to link to the sample page (which is also now broken). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrew Gray: That was a mistake in the AuthorityControl script. I've fixed it. --Jakob (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Jakec: It now goes to www.oxforddnb.com/public/dnb/xxxxxxxx.html - this gives an error :-). Could we switch it to www.oxforddnb.com/index/XXXXX/ instead? It looks like almost all uses use the 101- form so we should probably standardise on this. Thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrew Gray: That was a mistake in the AuthorityControl script. I've fixed it. --Jakob (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- ...in fact, unless my browser is going weird, they all seem to link to the sample page (which is also now broken). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Relatedly, I've just discovered that P1384 (P1384) is an OBIN property. We probably don't need both, and that's only used on three pages; should we deprecate one? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Jakec: I have written a tiny script that will redirect to the appropriate URL, depending on the presence of the 101 prefix: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/odnb_redirect.php?id=ODNB_ID That should take care of the immediate issue.
- @Andrew Gray: I just checked all ~550 items with Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415); turns out only Charles William Miller (Q430712) has the "short" version, all the others have the 101 prefix. There are only 2 (two) items with P1384 (P1384) at the moment. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Magnus Manske: Great - in which case I'll mark the other one as deprecated and relabel this one as OBIN (with appropriate alternate names) since we're standardising on the 101- form. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Known errors
edit- "David Saunders" is George Saunders = George Saunders (Q18810744). --Kolja21 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't actually an error. The ODNB has a few thousand "secondary" entries, where a second person is dealt with inside another article - usually a more important relative but sometimes a thematic group of people. A number gets assigned for each person, and both resolve to the same article (with an anchor in the text at the first time each name apears). In this case, the main article is George (40964), and it also covers his father David (40967). Andrew Gray (talk)
Short IDs
edit@Charles Matthews, Andrew Gray: I tried to add P1415 = 190 for Ælric (Q8077305) to link to http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/190 but the link doesn't work.
Having read through the above comments, is there something special that needs to be done for "short IDs" like this? Jheald (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Got him. Turned out I could look him up at http://global.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/index/ which gave me the long-form version of the ID, in this case 101000190. Jheald (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- And also remembered to find and redirect Ælric (Q18526324), since if there is a new ODNB link to make, that means there must also be a wikidata item created to have that link that needs to be merged. Jheald (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good catch. The constraint report will hopefully pick the duplicates up should you miss them, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, the point is that the OBINs are all padded out to have nine digits. And you do that by adding enough initial digits from 101000000. The "normal case" is therefore that you put 1010 in front of a five-digit number; but there can be six digits, as well as fewer. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
New URLs
edit@Andrew Gray: The ODNB has just had a new skin (Oxford Blue (Q7115244), natch), and probably numerous editorial changes to the supporting text. It also has new URLs, and at first sight anyway simply changing the formatter URLs won't do.
A typical URL is now like https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/64900, formed with the shorter form rather than the padded 101064900 OBIN. If that is a DOI, it is then supposed to work permanently. But right now there are broken links. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Hmmm. This is going to be a bit of a challenge to deal with. I think our options are:
- Revert this property to being the short 64900 ODNB ID (rather than the broader "OBIN", which they don't seem to be highlighting any more) and change the link pattern, probably to the DOI.
- Switch it to using the DOI-style URL.
- Switch it to using the full URL - www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-64900
The first of these seems like the best solution to me - it's easy for reusers to understand and means we can keep the 1:1 connection between this property and the ODNB. I'd always wondered how we were going to handle non-ODNB material through this, given that we use "has P1415" as a proxy for "is in the ODNB". Unfortunately, it will be a complex task - we'll need to re-import all the IDs in the new form. This is straightforward enough but will mean ~150k bot edits. Shall I start working out how to do it? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Preparting this just now; see related discussion at Wikidata:Project chat#Oxford Biography Index Number (P1415). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- About 45k of the 120k total edits now done; may take until Monday morning to get everything sorted. But grinding away at it... Andrew Gray (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
About to run this. Things to check after the migration -
All old forms removed
Check against old list to make sure none got lost
Authority control script(not needed now)
- Will check through these shortly but looks like we're good. One major problem, though - it makes it difficult to find the number for a "secondary" article. See eg 16978 (which is merged in with 16977); the only way to identify this DOI is to go right down to the bottom and use the "see also" link. This displays in the same way whether the "see also" is the secondary person in the main article, or a linked relative with a different article. Not great - we'll have to keep a close watch on duplicate IDs. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
More URL woes?
edit@Charles Matthews, Andrew Gray: Recent ODNB additions such as Noble, Mary Eleanor - https://doi.org/10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.139498 - Mary Eleanor Noble (Q66311425) - have DOIs in the form https://doi.org/10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.139498 and DOIs produced by our formatter produce 404s - e.g. see this oldid producing https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/139498. (139498 may not event be her ODNB ID. Who knows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm getting the same thing with https://doi.org/10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.111907 for Peggy Crewe-Milnes, Marchioness of Crewe (Q75285257). I've recorded the link as described at URL (P973) instead of Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415). From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, Andrew Gray, Tagishsimon, From Hill To Shore: I have used
../odnb/9780198614128.013.369088for Licoricia of Winchester (Q50137051). Not beautiful, but appears to work. Jheald (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews, Andrew Gray, Tagishsimon, From Hill To Shore, Jheald: FYI this is still an ongoing issue. I just came across it and came up with another possible temporary fix, which can be seen at Mark E. Smith (Q1346818). I set Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415) as "unknown value" whilst filling in the title of the ODNB entry, the name of the entry's author, the publication date, and (crucially) the DOI. Not ideal at all, but it at least preserves the information in some form and, strictly speaking, it's true: the "correctly formatted" value (in terms of how such a value is currently interpreted by Wikidata) may be unknown, but nonetheless there is a real existing ODNB entry for that person, and thus there is some value that is (or would be) "correct". Unfortunately, I assume this problem will be ongoing for new ODNB entries going forward unless some solution is found—here's a list of entries published in March 2022, the same month as Mark E. Smith's entry. Blz 2049 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think using "unknown value" here is the right approach. As we know all these IDs. But the current URL formatter can't handle some of them. It seems to me that we still have to change the formatter to the full version, because doi.org does not handle a significant number of IDs. I'm in the process of parsing missing IDs and updating descriptions for Mix-n-match and gathered some statistics (it's still in process and about 90% complete yet - older IDs are done, newer are still parsing). So, all the direct links exist in only two variants:
- https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-ID — used in 1076+ entries.
- https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-ID — used in 63013+ entries.
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/ fails to proceed 640 out of 63013 "ref:odnb" IDs.
- https://doi.org/10.1093/odnb/ proceeds only 79 out of 1076 "odnb" IDs. But /odnb/ is not in the use at the moment on WD, so it's rather +1076 failed IDs.
- So summarily the current formatter fails with more than 2700 IDs. And it will be a bad solution to replace them with "unknown value". We just need to find a better URL formatter or use the full ID. Solidest (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, because the Mix-n-match catalog exists, we shouldn't come up with different non-standard IDs either. So I returned all values to the standard digital IDs and added the qualifier "URL" with a full link to the object with each of them. Solidest (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, perhaps the formatter "http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/$1" would be a better replacement for doi. This handles both "odnb" and "ref:odnb" links, as well as a new 11-digit 90000****** IDs. But it also has problems handling old links starting with 101***. But it seems to have problems with less IDs compared to doi. Solidest (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- And there's also "https://www.oxforddnb.com/viewbydoi/10.1093/ref:odnb/$1" or "https://www.oxforddnb.com/doi/10.1093/ref:odnb/$1" variants, which I haven't checked with the IDs yet. Solidest (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
URL formatter update
editAs I wrote above, I've finished collecting all the working IDs and checked their behaviour with the redirect formatters mentioned above. At the moment there are 64860 identifiers with working full links. There are also additional 670 IDs which works as redirects only via http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/ + also 4 identifiers are deprecated and are now 404. Both are excluded from the stats below.
| name | working redirects | issues with correct redirects | non-working (404) | working with the newest IDs?
(90000****** format) |
final number (working correct vs. non-working) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/$1 | 62461 | 15 — ref:odnb vs. odnb issues (redirect leads to incorrect correct type of link) | 2399 | no | 62446 vs. 2414 |
41089 have double redirect (both variants correctly redirect to full link)
| |||||
| https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/$1 | 64853 | — | 6 | yes | 64854 vs. 6 |
| https://www.oxforddnb.com/doi/10.1093/ref:odnb/$1 | 62577 | — | 2283 | no | 62577 vs. 2283 |
| http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/$1 | 64850 | 1103 — redirects to completely different IDs (applies to ids starting with "101": 1011–1019, 10101–10199, 101001–101999) | 10 | yes | 64850 vs. 1113 |
| https://www.oxforddnb.com/viewbydoi/10.1093/ref:odnb/$1 | ? | had too many 503 server errors, so I skipped it | ? | ? | ? |
So I think the right thing to do is to replace the URL formatter to https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/, as the one with the least amount of problems. Solidest (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Out of 6 IDs with non-working redirects (92872, 93179, 93180, 93262, 96943, 108986) only 2 are used on WD now: Robin Ibbs (Q7352558) and Chief Justiciar of England (Q20680131), so I've added "URL" qualifier with the correct full link to them. Solidest (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)