Contemporaries: if [item A] has this property (doctoral advisor(P184)) linked to [item B], then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
@Jobu0101: actually, by "first" and "second" advisor do you mean that he had one main advisor and a secondary one, or that he changed advisor. To indicate that that the advisor changed, it may be better to usefollows(P155) /followed by(P156). If that means main vs secondary advisor, I think it should be as you did, but we a more explicit label or description onfirst doctoral advisor(Q26236695). -Zolo (talk)14:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zolo: Hello, ton avis stp. La soutenance effective d'une thèse est-elle une condition nécessaire de la propriété ? Autrement dit s'agit-il du directeur d'une thèse effectivement soutenue ou du directeur d'un travail doctoral en vue d'une thèse, y compris s'il est notoire que ce travail n'a pas débouché sur la thèse entreprise sous la direction de cette personne ? Cordialement,Racconish (talk)12:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Racconish : j'aurais dit d'une "thèse effectivement soutenue" : la soutenance venant en quelque sorte "graver dans le marbre" la direction de thèse, qui demeure la vie du chercheur durant ; de la part de ceux qui, au contraire, ont abandonné avant, je n'ai jamais entendu que "untel A ETE mon directeur de thèse", ce qui montre que la donnée n'a plus de validité. Je ne sais pas si je suis clair...
Mais d'autres soutiennent le contraire ; je suis prêt à entendre les arguments en ce sens.
I am a bit concerned about the application of this property. It seems that people are using academictree.org as a source, see, e.g.,[2][3]. But I believe that academic tree has a much broader definition of academic connection than "doctoral advisor". Albert A. Michelson seems to have been educated in USA, while his P184's is listed as being the doctoral student of Helmholtz and a French physisist called Alfred Cornu. I find it hard to believe that he had doctoral advisors in two countries, while it might very well be that he worked as some kind of postdoc with Helmholtz and Cornu. But the latter doesn't make them doctoral advisors. I have the suspicious that such problematic annotation might be widespread with P184. Perhapsstudent of(P1066) better reflect academictree.org, neurotree.org and similar listings? —Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk)17:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! This property is meant to be person to person. What would then be the right way (if any) to mark the supervisor on a specific thesis item?--Reosarevok (talk)08:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: It is a tricky case as 1. there are people with some unusual degree such asthèse de troisième cycle (MGP even misspells "troisième" as "troiième"); 2. even for most common ones like Ph.D. the term is inconsistent in Wikidata (Doctor(Q4618975)/doctorate(Q849697)/Doctor of Philosophy(Q752297)) and the actual spelling may varies between school. I know some French schools issue two diplomas to one person, one in French and one in English.--GZWDer (talk)18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there cases where this isn't a useful suggestion constraint? This even if we could have items for people that didn't actually get a degree and thedoctoral advisor(P184) can still be referenced.
Of course it may exists cases of students who did not have reached de doctorate. But if we put the P512 as a constraint, there are thousands of P184 in WD that will show a warning because P512 is not informed. It's crazy: some exceptions spoil thousands of cases.--Ferran Mir (talk)18:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is
(1) if we have thousands of items about doctoral students that didn't get a degree (which raises the question why they are notable)
(2) or if they haven't gotten the degree yet
(3) or if we just haven't added the information yet.
Do you really think thatwe have thousands of items about doctoral students that didn't get a degree. May be we have a lot of chemists that are not chemists!!--Ferran Mir (talk)19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Somehow I thought we'd have mostly (3), but it's clear that even (1) and (2) should have some value. ---Jura09:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
