Property talk:P1932

Documentation

object named as
use as qualifier to indicate how the object's value was given in the source

Description

use as qualifier to indicate used spelling or how a certain information was printed in the source

Data type

String

Usage notes

In regard to the object of a statement. With external identifiers, better use P1810 (named as).

Example

According to this template: <Before the embers (Q17356113)> author <Léon Barracand (Q1571850)> with qualifier printed as <Léon Grandet>

According to statements in the property:
Before the embers (Q17356113) → Léon Grandet
Toktogul Satylganov (Q426378) → Кушчусу

When possible, data should only be stored as statements

Creation discussion

Necessary to show how a name was printed on a certain book (old spellings), or how a certain statement was represented on print (ex. "mid 18th to early 19th century").--Micru (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've actually just suggested the need for something similar for dates. A lot of images I was uploading for the British Library recently had dates like "Mid 17th century to early 18th century". We can express that currently as 1780 (1730-1830), but we're losing information, and somebody else with specialist knowledge might have chosen different date ranges. So it's information that it would be a good thing to have a mechanism to store. I don't know whether "Printed as" is better or worse than "in orginal source", but I think it is functionality that we should have. Jheald (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similarly to P357 (P357) we should use "By Statement" like Open Library does it. Example The duel, and other stories, "by Anton Chekhov, from the Russian by Constance Garnett". (Otherwise we would need to add a qualifier for the translator, 2nd author etc.) --Kolja21 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Datatype: "Monolingual-text" might be better. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment musicbrainz calles this an artist attribution which would be a better lable since it then would also apply to other kinds of creative works. and it, of course shouldn't be a multilingual variable since one issue of a printed book should only state a single language. if not there could be multiple modifiers.--Shisma (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think {P387 (P387) can be used for this as a qualifier for date statements etc. to preserve the exact wording but still have the ability to add info to timelines etc. Filceolaire (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but rename to "original wording" and add aliases "printed as", "originally printed as", "author statement". I haven't seen the term "By Statement" in cataloging practice. "Attribution" could be added as alias, but it involves more scholarly activities of trying to figure out who created a certain work, with various outcomes (eg "formerly attributed to", "mis-attributed to", "in the style of", "following", "studio of", "workshop of" etc) --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - still not created, after more than a year… I remember discussing it (otherwhere), and was sure it already existed… please, please, create it… it's really needed for a lot of works where the name of the author is not indicated on the work, (like initials)... --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, following Vladimir Alexiev's suggested wording: object named as (P1932) MSGJ (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Label

On reflection perhaps "stated as" is better than "original wording", because it may not be words as such, but symbols, initials or abbreviations. Feel free to revert me. MSGJ (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identical with subject named as (P1810)? --Kolja21 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

subject named as (P1810) is (I think) more often used for how the subject of the statement was named; object named as (P1932) for how the property + value pair was stated. Some statements have both qualifiers -- eg in film credits for a person, to indicate how the person was named in the particular credit, vs. how the job they did was stated. Jheald (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this project chat discussion, I've added a usage instruction, particularly in regard to external identifiers. Jneubert (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian description is kinda misleading

{{Editprotected}}

this says ‘spelling of the source’, not ‘wording of the source’. Should be moved to secondary aliases (as ~ «орфография текста в источнике») while the main description should be smt. like «используется как квалификатор, чтобы указать точную формулировку в источнике». — 188.123.231.61 10:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Baidax

Comme ça me semblait correct avant, je préfère faire appel à votre grande érudition pour trancher cette demande. Au plaisir. —Eihel (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eihel: I agree with this observation: I changed the description to the wording indicated, which is consistent with the descriptions in the other major languages. — Baidax ^💬 23:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Baidax —Eihel (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Named as" as an English alias

@Moebeus: You reverted my edit and removed "named as" from English aliases. Both P1932 (object stated/named as) and P1810 (subject named as) can be called "named as", and their difference is "object" vs. "subject". Some editors wrongly use P1810 (subject named as) as a property for "object named as". Adding "named as" to P1932's English aliases can remind editors of the difference and help them edit correctly. I have reverted your revert. Hope this is ok with you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your decision, these two properties used to be called "Named as" and "Stated as" for years, the subject/object came about just last week. Now both have the alias "named as", I think it will lead to confusion and people will struggle with which one to choose. But you've made your point, I won't engage in an edit war. Moebeus (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some edits have used P1810 as "named as" for both subject and object for a long time. Adding subject/object to labels of P1810 (see this) and P1932 (see this, this, and this) helps clarify that P1810 should not be used in that way. If you disagree, we may discuss whether the difference between P1810 and P1932 should be "named vs. stated" or should be "subject vs. object". A relevant discussion can be found on Property talk:P1810 (see this). Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay: My objection would be slightly different. I know the difference between subject named as (P1810) and object named as (P1932). (Cf my comment of 7 Oct 2017 above, diff) I know that P1810 is for subjects and P1932 is for objects. I was actually the one who reminded Tagishsimon and Andy that that was the distinction [1]. I don't mind the main label being changed to remind people of it. (Though we may have a problem if as a result people think object named as (P1932) is not appropriate for people because they are not objects (cf diff), and subject named as (P1810) is not appropriate for "objects" (meaning non-people) because they have a different property.)

My objection to your revert on the alias is different, and practical. As I said, I know the difference between P1810 and P1932. What was immensely useful was for them to have different labels, so that entering a qualifier as soon as you type 'n' the system would prompt "named as", and as soon as you typed 's' the system would prompt "stated as" -- with no chance for a mistake. Now, with both aliased to both, that zero of ambiguity that existed before no longer exists. Now, if I start typing 'named as', they system throws up a choice box, that I have to look at and find the one I want; and sometimes even accidentally click the wrong one. This change had therefore for me made data editing slower, and more prone to error. I believe User:Moebeus may feel the same. Therefore, I would personally prefer it, strongly, if this property did not have the alias "named as". Thanks, Jheald (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jheald: Thanks for your message. I understand that adding "named as" to P1932 (object stated as)'s aliases may make editing slower. But it might be a good thing because some, if not many, editors (including me, until two weeks ago) mistakenly use P1810 (subject named as) for both "subject" and "object". Adding "named as" to P1932's aliases may help those editors think twice before editing. If editors type "named as" and only get P1810, they may simply ignore the "subject" in the label and have no idea that there is a property (P1932) for "object named as". Another example is that both P2826 (subject has role) and P3831 (object has role) have alias "has role". It also helps avoid confusion although it may make editing slower. I think that experienced editors (like you) may find other ways to locate P1810/P1932 quickly. So I personally prefer adding "named as" to P1932's aliases. But if you remove it, it will be absolutely ok with me for I have already understood the difference between P1810 and P1932. I will not revert the removal anymore. Probably I do not need to worry about other editors' confusion. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to 'stated as'

Hi, I've reverted the change to this template that added 'object' to the English description, so now it's just 'stated as'. The reason is that this property is *extensively* used in items about scholarly articles to indicate what the author name is stated as, and it implies that authors are objects, which is really not OK. Since this is reverting to the status quo, I hope this can stay for now, and we can have a discussion here before re-implementing it? Pinging those that edited over this (that I can spot - feel free to ping others I might have missed) @Tagishsimon, GerardM, Pigsonthewing: Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see a related discussion at Property_talk:P1810#change_to_English_label also including @UWashPrincipalCataloger, Neo-Jay:. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor. That it is used extensively on scholarly items, where the context immediately makes plain whether "named as" relates to the subject or the object, is of no solace whatsoever to the occasions where it is used in situations in which context does not indicate whether the qualifier relates to the subject or the object. Like it or not, on a scholarly paper item, an author is an object, and not a subject. Properties are widely applied, and seeking to constrain the name to fit one single use case whilst disregarding the obvious scope for confusion both at data entry time and at data consumption time, of "named as" versus "stated as", ill serves this project. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: I don't think that changing the label of the property helps there, though. Maybe it needs splitting, or uses of it revising? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I lost my appetite to argue. It is so degrading. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you have reverted (and you haven't fully reverted; you changed the label but left the aliases in a miss-matched state), after a discussion on Twitter in which the points you repeat here were refuted - nothing in what you say here argues against those refutations.

In that thread, I told you "They [authors of papers] are the object of the statement (as opposed to the subject of the statement)" and "Put it another way: "named as" and "stated as" are synonymous."

The discussion of P1810 which you linked to came to the conclusion that the change you reverted was warranted (Neo-Jay realised this and self-reverted their undoing of it); and includes the definition (long-standing, in our Glossary; emboldened in discussion) Triple (or "semantic triple", or "triplet") is the atomic data entity in the RDF data model, which codifies statements in the form of subject–predicate–object expressions.

Your assertion that to imply that authors are objects is "really not OK" is thus false.

I note that we also have long-standing use of the term object in object of statement has role (P3831) and applies to name of object (P8338) - each of which can apply to people (indeed, each of those properties has a person in their example properties)

In the thread immediately above this one, Neo-Jay points out that "some edits have used P1810 as 'named as' for both subject and object for a long time." and "some, if not many, editors (including me, until two weeks ago) mistakenly use P1810 (subject named as) for both "subject" and "object"."

Clarifying the label addresses these issues, unambiguously, is perfectly congruent and acceptable, and should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Checking back on the Twitter thread, most comments came *after* I started this discussion - but regardless, it's better to discuss things on-wiki anyway. I agree with you that "named as" and "stated as" are synonymous. I still don't think that referring to people as objects is OK - I want to see a solution that avoids that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You started this discussion on 17 June. The Twitter comments I quoted were posted by me on 16 June. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting following private message from Mike Peel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not good enough. GerardM (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: eh what pole. GerardM (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is nonsensical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference with object stated in reference as (P5997)

May someone clarify the difference between object named as (P1932) and object stated in reference as (P5997)? Is it just the fact that the second specifies an "unusual" name for the object value? Horcrux (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English change to "original wording"

@Michel Bakni: Would you please explain how this is an improvement. The change affects many items, so I think an explanation might benefit the community. Trilotat (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monolingual property would be needed for this purpose

A monolingual property is missing for this use. I am an using title (P1476) instead as qualifier. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P1932

Contents

Documentation

Creation discussion

Label

Russian description is kinda misleading

"Named as" as an English alias

Changed back to 'stated as'

Difference with object stated in reference as (P5997)

English change to "original wording"

Monolingual property would be needed for this purpose

Navigation menu

Property talk:P1932

Documentation

Creation discussion

Label

Russian description is kinda misleading

"Named as" as an English alias

Changed back to 'stated as'

Difference with object stated in reference as (P5997)

English change to "original wording"

Monolingual property would be needed for this purpose

Navigation menu

Search