Wikidata:Property proposal/Urban Dictionary ID

Urban Dictionary ID

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Not done

Description	crowdsourced dictionary on internet and urban slang
Represents	Urban Dictionary (Q310004)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	lexeme
Allowed values	([a-zA-Z0-9.-]|%[0-9A-F]{2})+ e.g. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=R%C3%B6ding and https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuke%20the%20Fridge
Example 1	meme (L56504) → meme
Example 2	family (L3342) → family
Example 3	brunch (L317450) → brunch
Example 4	cum (L295218) → cum
Number of IDs in source	~ 7000
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL	http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=$1
Applicable "stated in"-value	Urban Dictionary (Q310004)

Motivation

Urban Dictionary (Q310004) is often an useful reference to learn about a particular slang term found on the Internet. A property would allow to link items to their definition in the website, and it is already used in some Wikipedia editions. Sabas88 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• It seems to me that this should rather be on Lexemes and not Items as currently in the examples. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I took the liberty of adding a regex and turning the examples into links. Hopes that is alright.--So9q (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with Lydia, this should be a property with domain lexeme, not item. Otherwise a good idea though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Same. It has to be used with lexemes.  Oppose. Thierry Caro (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Thierry Caro, ArthurPSmith:I took the liberty of changing the domain. Better now?--So9q (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  You shall now use lexemes as examples. brunch (L317450) for instance. Thierry Caro (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah I can agree to change to lexemes but I don't understand your opposition, considering there are items covering the examples right now but there aren't many lexemes in this space right now so it can stimulate the creation of them. --Sabas88 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Q-items can link to the lexeme using subject lexeme (P6254) and there is no need to have the same data in 2 places (unnecessary redundancy aka bloat)--So9q (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Changed the examples @Thierry Caro, ArthurPSmith: is it ok now?

•  Support AntisocialRyan (Talk) 14:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose The site is full of low quality troll entries--Trade (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate? I don't follow your reasoning. It is crowd-sourced. There seem to be no quality control, but does that really matter?--So9q (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

   Comment Submissions are reviewed by moderators before they are accepted. AntisocialRyan (Talk) 23:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose samples need to be revised. This seems to be a concept-based glossary rather than a word-based dictionary. Accordingly, entries are more suitable for items than for lexemes (where they would be on sense level, not lexeme or form level). Just use "item for this sense" on lexemes. --- Jura 07:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Jura1: that was my initial idea as well @Thierry Caro, ArthurPSmith, LydiaPintscher: could you comment? Thanks --Sabas88 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Sabas88, Jura1: It would be silly to go around in circles here. If it was actually a "concept-based glossary" then a single entry ought to allow for multiple words that mean the same thing (whether in a single language or multiple languages). Take for example idiot (Q193607) which is in English labeled "idiot", but has aliases "dolt", "dullard", "moron", etc. This dictionary has a separate listing for each word, not a single listing for the concept. Therefore it is clearly a word-based dictionary and not a concept-based glossary. Jura is simply completely incorrect here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Glossaries can have several entries or cross-references for the same concept. A distinct value constraint doesn't require a single value constraint. --- Jura 13:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  I did not understand your reasoning here. Could you give an example and/or elaborate? I found an API that they use to handle the up and down votes and they use a unique persistent id "defid" for that, see e.g. https://api.urbandictionary.com/v0/uncacheable?ids=12939928. Unfortunately, I cannot find an endpoint or URL formatter using this id. I just asked them to support lookups by defid and that would solve all issues as I see it :).

hi 
I'm a volunteer at Wikidata.
we are discussing how to best link to you and would like to hear if you have exposed the defids somewhere in the URL of your site?
e.g. https://api.urbandictionary.com/v0/uncacheable?ids=12939928 gives back the up and down votes but I wonder if I can get the data for the entry or navigate to it using the same id somewhere?
e.g. https://urbandictionary.com/define.php?id=12939928?
a unique identifier that we can use as a persistent link from our lexemes would be really nice to have
it could also help you get more traffic from us as our lexemes grow and Google and others start using them in their products.

--So9q (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Sabas88, So9q, Jura1, AntisocialRyan, ArthurPSmith, Thierry Caro: —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Sabas88@Jura1@ArthurPSmith, it seems that we all (almost) all agree that there should be something for Urban Dictionary, but we can't agree on whether the property domain should be item or lexeme. So that we can move forward, where do we stand on that question? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would choose lexemes, as many lexeme properties don't link to a specific definition, but just the word, like this one does. See Merriam-Webster online dictionary entry (P11130), where entries can have many definitions and multiple Wikidata lexemes can have the same identifier. I don't see the difference really. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 01:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  feel free to create the proposal again as this one seem to be closed... --Sabas88 (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)