Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Wikidata/Support ISO 8601-2:2019 to specify uncertainty about times

Random proposal ►◄ Wikidata The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Support ISO 8601-2:2019 to specify uncertainty about times

Problem: Many times sources specify a date with some uncertainty. A source might say that a person died between 1341 and 1345, or that it was approximately created at a certain date.
Who would benefit: Anyone who wants to record data with uncertainty in a way similar to what the sources say.
Proposed solution: Adopt the ways of specifying Time Interval, Qualification of a date and Unspecified digit(s) from the right layed out in ISO 8601-2:2019 (described in http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/edtf.html). This would allow writing 1341/1345 for a date of death between 1341 and 1345.
More comments:
Phabricator tickets: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207705
Proposer: ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Sounds sensible. Does the standard also cover some typical historical usages (fl., circa, before X...)? I tend to see that kind of dating are usually misunderstood for more numerical treatment.--FAR (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I understand fl. stands for floruit and that's well modeled as it's own property in Wikidata and I don't see how it belongs here. The standard defines "uncertain" and "approximate". Circa can be modeled with uncertain. I didn't explicitly ask for open ended time intervals in this proposal but the standard does define them. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Jarekt below: While the current practice is tedious and I don’t like it very much, a clear path to a clean future unified state would need to be defined prior to implementing the proposal. --Mormegil (cs) 14:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the Community Wishlist is not the place to define standards of how things are used. Those conversation have to happen on Wikidata and having them only makes sense when there's a decent likelihood that there's work on this feature. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EDTF support is now available for Wikibase via the Wikibase EDTF extension. (Release announcement, Demo video) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support IagoQnsi (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imz (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trang Oul (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Berdajeno (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nashona (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support YFdyh000 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nw520 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support josecurioso ❯❯❯ Tell me! 22:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frettie (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mahir256 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Silver hr (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support NMaia (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alkari (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tmv (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kpjas (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would better align Wikidata with Library of Congress best practices for archival records, for instance. Currently qualifiers are used but prevalence is uneven. Arlo Barnes (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Петър Петров (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A reasonable and easy fix to a small but widespread problem. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — putnik 19:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support [Declaring an interest, as a contributor to the EDTF standard] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moebeus (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ecritures (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jim Bey (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Libcub (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jc86035 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paucabot (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dhx1 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Watty62 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thadguidry (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rhudson (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Librarian lena (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lmbarrier (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support H. Mary (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steganogram (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pajaritowiki (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bethpc (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would be very handy. Right now there's no proper way to indicate something like this except for a decade (which is not very specific). Husky (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kgronsbell (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poslovitch (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Susanna Giaccai (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arnd (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clements.UWLib (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saumier (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jimfhahn (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chrisjowaisas (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zidmgmt (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crazy1880 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Erussey (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meejies (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redalert2fan (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francois-Pier (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strainu (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Codl (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Klaas `Z4␟` V: 15:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral improving modeling of the dates on Wikidata is an ongoing issue and there are many long standing tickets related to it. However this proposal provides alternative modeling solution to the current practice of modeling more nuanced dates with qualifiers (see d:Help:Dates#Qualifiers), without addressing the issue how are those 2 standards going to coexist. --Jarekt (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would enable widespread interoperability, absolutely! Brimwats (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support _• _• _hugarheimur 08:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support —— Eric Liu_{（留言．百科用戶頁）} 11:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support TiagoLubiana (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mohanad Kh ^Talk 06:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pullen255 (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support GiFontenelle (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jklamo (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mijam23 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fringilla (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support S8321414 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbrinkerink (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]