Hi Jane, Erika, and everybody else,

As a relatively recent contributor to Wikidata, I have been struggling to understand the objections to the Black Lunch Table's use of the catalog property and the points of view behind this discussion. I have read all the emails, and all the linked to discussion and talk pages, and finally had to go back to tracing all the Q and P entries and their parent classes mentioned in those discussion, to come up with my own understanding of the situation from basic principles. It has taken hours, and given how much effort has gone into the various discussions in the different locations it is frustrating that (as far as I have seen) no one objecting to the usage has been sufficiently clear what the problem is, or the exact nature of the 'abuse'. 

I don't think it is as obvious as some are claiming it to be. Nor do I think all people claiming the abuse are even aligned on what the valid issues are, since no one has been specific, and in the discussions, various issues are being conflated.

Given that people here have different backgrounds, languages, are focused on different tasks, and may not be as intimately familliar with some P and Q items as others, I believe it is worth spelling out exactly what the nature of the problem is, especially since I think every one is aware of the good faith nature of the Black Lunch Table, and presumably aligned in the goal of making Wikidata better.

I'm replying to Jane's email because this seems like the closest statement to what I can determine to be a simple valid complaint, I'm going to try to set it down here clearly so others can agree or disagree whether it is the entirety of the objection, or if there is more to it:

Q28781198:Black Lunch Table is P31:instance of  Q21025364:WikiProject

but is being used to populate P972:Catalog, which is supposed to represent an instance of Q2352616:catalog

The objection is that anything entered into P972:Catalog MUST be P31:instance of Q2352616:catalog

Is that it?

Perhaps this is obvious after the fact, but I don't think it was obvious from reading any of the initial objection notifications, or requests for deletions, or subsequent follow ups. When the usage is made in good faith, the objection does need to be spelled out so that everyone involved can check their assumptions and understanding.  

If that is the entirety of the objection, I have to agree that it is technically sound, and hopefully that provides a basis for a solution that keeps everybody happy.

Some other comments which I hope do not cloud my attempt at clarifying things:

It seems clear that the Black Lunch Table Wiki Project has a list of artists they are interested in, so I consider that the Black Lunch Table catalog is real thing. From my reading of Q2352616:catalog there is nothing that strictly specifies how it must be represented or published, nor can I see anything clear about how public it needs to be to be valid. These properties would appear to be inherited from its parent class Q386724:work  I accept people will have different opinions about what quality of publishing or how public something needs to be before it is 'good', but it does not seem like a clear cut thing, and the arguments could go on and on without much productive outcome. 

Insisting that BLT publish their list elsewhere could be trivially done to technically meet some publication threshold, and still not be good enough for some, and would not be a productive use of resources or change anything in a meaningful way. It might be nice if it were made more accessible elsewhere, but I don't think it is a technical requirement for BLT to accomplish what they are trying to do. Feel free to disagree, but the point I'm trying to make is that I can't see how an objective threshold can be set here that couldn't be unproductively argued about either way. BLT has a real catalog, opinions as to its quality, or quality of availability can vary. I'm sure polite requests to improve things can be made.  

One place where another user attempted to clarify a technical objection to BLT use of catalog is: "

• More technically: the way how the catalog property is used by BLT is technically incorrect, which was mentioned several times and very early as well. Catalogs are typically qualifiers to catalog code (P528), or used in exhibition items, but not standalone on items about humans. Editors who spend a lot of time to fix wrong property use are not happy if we allow permanent exceptions.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)"

I think the above misses the point, and stumbles on unclear definitions in the description of P972 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P972#Documentation  which claims the 'Domain' is 'exhibition' which seems an unnecessary elevation of one catalog type example to some special status. Below is says 'often exhibition catalog'. Often is fine, it does not mean always though. And 'typically qualifiers to catalog code' may be true, but again it does not prevent it being used without a catalog code. The Documentation on P972 could be clearer, and I consider that 'Domain': 'exhibition' to be plain incorrect on that page, which does not help clear interpretations for anyone.

I see no requirement that the usage of P972:Catalog needs a catalog code (P528) (I don't think anyone has claimed this as an primary objection against BLT catalog usage, but then it hasn't been clear). Catalogs without codes seem valid in principle, and my reading of the Wikidata properties is that this is perfectly fine in Wikidata too.

There seems to be some confusion about the subjects on the BLT catalog being thought of as attendees of BLT events (I've read this on both sides) -- individuals on the BLT catalog are there because they are (potentially) notable artists, and the purpose of BLT is to add all the appropriate links to show this notability. From what I have read, if an individual is not really notable and the links don't exist, that entry will be removed _by_ BLT, as that is what the project is about. I would take it on good faith that anyone on the BLT list is  notable.

Perhaps this raises questions about whether stubs or placeholder entries are acceptable on Wikidata? Clarity on this would be beneficial to many other editors and users of Wikidata. Do entries have to be added to Wikidata fully formed and perfect, or is there some understanding that items have differing levels of quality and can always be improved? I don't know. I think very clear statements on this would be useful, as my reading of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability  

2) It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.

is that the threshold for meeting this is very low, and 'identifiable' means that someone could do it if they tried, not necessarily that all the links and supporting evidence are immediately available. I could write more on this, but again it feels like I am conflating issues which isn't helpful.

To summarise  my take on things, I started out neutral and just wanting to understand what this storm in my inbox was about. Now if I had to chose a "side", I would side with BLT.

Erika, I hope you don't take my attempt at clarification above as my personal objection, I'd like to see things resolved in a way that allows you to proceed with your project!

My attempt at a solution would be to create a BLT catalog which is an instance of Q2352616:catalog and somehow belongs to or is associated with Q28781198:Black Lunch Table, and use that in all the existing P972:Catalog locations.

Honestly I don't know if that will silence all objections, and it seems a pretty trivial semantic re-shuffling to add another layer, but it feels like a technically correct solution to what looks like a valid technical objection.

Last thing, apparently consensus advice was given to use P972:Catalog in this way, all I can assume is that either the advice was somehow mis-communicated or recieved, and the intent of the advice was always to use a BLT _catalog_ for this purpose, rather than a WikiProject, or that no one really thought about that aspect of it and the consensus advice was given and received all in good faith and acted upon by BLT as intended. Either way, it doesn't seem like that much of a big deal, mistakes are made and things are overlooked. 

If all that is wrong is Q28781198:Black Lunch Table needs a Q2352616:catalog  instance to use for their purposes, can we get some confirmation consensus and move forward?

I have already invested enough time into trying to understand this that I'm willing to help out and make it happen!

Charles Horn.

Wikidata user: Salpynx