Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Non-article items for property:p107

< Wikidata:Requests for comment
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Non-article items for property:p107" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!


THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per this RfC which concludes in the deletion of the property this RfC is about, I am just going to close this as no result. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are items about wikipedia: wikiproject:(in some wikis) potal: help: name spaces about project pages and category: and template: namespces I just want to know what value we need to use.--DangSunM (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using P107 to non-article items with new value edit

yes edit

 Comment Q13384863 is not new. This item is already in use and "survied" a RFD. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale for violating the definition of the GND main type property by adding a non-GND main type (Q13384863)? In the vote for the nature of P107, most contributors -- including you -- agreed that P107 "should be confined to the GND main types: person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term". Emw (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wikidata main type of item based on GND types. For example biology and chemistry items are GND type snz = "term (Q1969448)". Without Q11651459 and Q13384863 we couldn't use P107 in all cases. (So this is imho the "P107 should not be used" discussion #150 ...) --23:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you are clearly bending the definition of P107 that was hammered out over the course of months. First, P107 is not "Wikidata main type of item", it is "GND main type". Second, valid values for P107 are confined to only those that correspond to the 6 high-level entities defined in the GND ontology. There is no problem with Q11651459 in itself in the context of P107; it maps to the GND main type "undifferentiated person", and thus is a valid value for P107. Q13384863, however, does not map to a GND main type, and thus is not a valid value for P107.
If there is some compelling need to apply P107 to items about internal Wikimedia entities, then those items can be classified with the "term" GND main type. "Term" is applied to everything else that lacks a useful GND main type, so it should work fine for non-articles, too. Emw (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P107 was not "hammered out" it was under fire for weeks, especially from you. It's still amazing that the property has survived. With just 8 main types we could structure all items of Wikidata, what would have huge advantages. Just think of a search function where one could say: "Search only person (Q215627)" or "leave out Q13384863". --Kolja21 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did you stop calling P107 "GND main type" and start calling it "Wikidata main type"? Why do you feel it necessary to use ad hominem tactics, like mentioning the irrelevant fact that I (like many others) have been opposed to P107 for a long time, in response to virtually every comment I make about P107? P107 is not "Wikidata main type", it is "GND main type". It says so right in the property's label. In the only explicit vote for the nature of P107, you agreed that P107 "should be confined to the GND main types: person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term". As we see from the lop-sided vote for allowing a new non-GND value (currently 2 "yes" and 7 "no"), most interested contributors still agree with the outcome of that previous vote. Emw (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Nothing to add. Just to repeat: P107 is not "Wikidata main type", it is "GND main type" Infovarius (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no edit

Kolja, how does that relate to the actual substance of my post? Your whispered note strikes me as ad hominem. The truth of the fact that P107 was agreed to be confined to the GND main types seems independent of the fact that you have been far and away the only champion of P107 and I have been one of its main detractors. Emw (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not per Emw. We've had this discussion before. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Your vote on P107: "Delete completely." --Kolja21 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    From the same person who pushes his pet project called the GND? Kolja, please, don't insinuate that I have not been consistent. :) --Izno (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We've voted "delete" for fallacious definition of P107 as "Wikidata main type". But (merely) I have no opposition to P107 as strict GND main type. By "strict" I mean - explicitly mentioned in http://d-nb.info. Any additional statements should be deleted, use new "Wikidata main type" instead. Infovarius (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • subclass of (P279):Wikipedia non article page with instance of (P31) Wikipedia Category page or instance of (P31)Wikipedia Portal page or instance of (P31)Wikipedia Help page etc.
  • --DangSunM (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Q13384863 for all "non article" items. Further differentiations should be left to other properties, otherwise P107 wouldn't be Wikidata main type of item. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand his intent. Dangsun I can only presume was speaking specifically on that item, and himself closed and then unclosed the RFD you speak of because he had opened this RFC. You may wish to reconsider the location of your comment. --Izno (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DangSunM created Q13411539 and proposed it as new value on Property talk:P107#new value. If this discussion should be again about deleting Q13384863 this should be pointed out. (Please see Property talk:P107#Examples for the use of Wikidata main type.) --Kolja21 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous discussion at Property talk:P107 is clear that we are only to use the GND main types in the GND main type claim. The property should go away completely as it can be queried by extension either on Wikidata using the subclass of or instance of relations, or by getting the GND ID from items which currently have them, but that is my opinion (the former part at least; the latter is a fact). DangSunM unclosed the discussion about 13384863 at my request, as I do not believe he had it in mind to bump into this thorned bush.

    Aside from that, see below. The former part of the next section is "if yes", which implies taht DangSunM has it in mind that only if "yes" is true then do we proceed to questioning which properties should be true. You will again which to consider whether you should have your comment placed in this section of the page.

    I have it in mind to start an actual, widespread and lengthy RFC on the use of P107, because you continue to be the only one pushing it for no apparent reason than that you can. It serves Wikidata little or no good and causes mass confusion, as evidenced by the continuing questions on its talk page.

    On a side note, P107 is not Wikidata's main type of item. It is specifically the GND main type. We've certainly had that discussion previously, and if you truly believe that this claim is the main type for Wikidata, we are further apart than I thought. Disturbingly so. --Izno (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    GND as a precise definition that does not depend from Wikidata: imho we cannot expand it without creating confusion. If we want to use an "extended GND system", it would be better change the name or create a different system of classification. --Paperoastro (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "...otherwise P107 wouldn't be Wikidata main type of item". Lolwut? P107 is not Wikidata main type of item and cannot be so. If one want Wikidata main type of item, one should to create a new one. I've tried to propose P:P1 - Kolya, you can support the creation. There you will be able to use Q13411539, Q13384863 and any other useful value :) Infovarius (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's not the job for GND according to Kolya21 once has stated. Infovarius (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per above. Doesn't seem to fit in the current definition of GDN, though we could expand that under a new name. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments edit

If not, we can use Q13411539 in property:p31 in my opinion.--DangSunM (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use instance of (P31) for the base of the hierarchy. It's too hard to find the right item and too easy to pick the wrong one. Create new property 'Wikipedia page type' which only is used to reference wikipedia page types such as 'Wikiproject', 'Wikipedia disambiguation page', 'Wikipedia list', 'Wikipedia portal', 'Wikipedia Help', 'Wikipedia multi-item page', 'Wikipedia category', 'Wikipedia template' etc. Each of these page type items can then have property instance of (P31):'Wikipedia page type' and subclass of (P279)"Wikipedia non-article page' (except 'Wikipedia multi-item page' and 'Wikipedia list' which are articles). Filceolaire (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New property proposal moved to the bottom of the page and ammended a bit. Filceolaire (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Value of items edit

If the "yes" votes in the above section prevail, then:

For Wikipedia project pages edit

  • wikipedia: wikiproject: help: and potal: namespace

Use 'Wikipedia project page' (Q13411539) edit

I switch to  Oppose per below. I also think this value needs to be using at p31.--DangSunM (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use 'non article' (Q13384863) edit

Use GND main type 'term' (Q1969448) edit

Comments edit

For categories and templates edit

Use new values edit

Made new value about template and category

Use 'non article' (Q13384863) edit

Use GND main type 'term' (Q1969448) edit

  •  Support P107 is the "GND main type" property. Any "new values" would not be GND main types, and thus would not be valid values for the property. If we classify items about internal Wikimedia entities with P107, then the GND main type term (Q1969448) would be the most appropriate valid value. ("Term" isn't a very useful classification for non-articles, but then again "term" isn't useful in the 100,000+ places it's already used.) Emw (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Emw. Infovarius (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments edit

Wikipedia Disambiguation pages are also Non-article pages and should be treated the same way.

Using another property instead edit

Create new Property: Wikidata Main Type edit

Several people including me proposed a new property like a Main Type (Wikidata) instead, as GND has only a limited pool of values. This "Main Type" could be structured by the community and my have many more possibilities to categorize items. Including templates, categories ... --Sk!d (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes edit

  • --Sk!d (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nightwish62 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As proposer of initial Wikidata main type property, of course,  Support. Infovarius (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I see a new property like following. Initially it can contain GND main types (except 'term', I suppose) as values. But unlike the P107 it can be expandable due to our needs. Of course, we'll add "Wikipedia template", "Wikipedia category", "Wikipedia project" and similar values. May be it is useful to add "special type" value for items which have no corresponding wiki-links (there are a bulk of them created but not categorized). Additionally we can add 1 or 2 sub-levels for better classification - all it's up to community. So it should be a property with strict but expandable set of values. Infovarius (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no edit

  • A Wikidata 'main type' property independent of the GND has been proposed and rejected; see the archived 'main type' proposal. This proposal seems essentially the same as that rejected proposal, so my argument against that is copied below:
 Oppose "Main types" are a taxonomic kludge for systems that don't support multiple levels of hierarchical classification. In a project to structure all knowledge -- which Wikidata is -- restricting items into a small set of types will inevitably lead to classifications that are either A) too broad to be useful or B) simply incorrect. In other words, whether it is based on the GND or not, an ontology that classifies things with "main types" will inevitably end up with problems like the uselessly broad "term" main type in GND main type (P107), or simply incorrect classifications like families and literary figures as GND main type 'person'. Again, to emphasize: the fact that P107 is based on "main types" is a bigger problem than the fact that it is based on the GND. Let's not repeat that mistake.
There is a better solution: use "type" properties recommended for the Semantic Web by the W3C -- that is, use rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf. These properties exist in Wikidata as instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279). These properties have been part of W3C recommendations for the Semantic Web for almost a decade. They are fundamental properties used in large controlled vocabularies to structure data into knowledge. They enable the important distinction between a type (class) and a token (instance). They facilitate classification at an arbitrary granularity; together 'instance of' and 'subclass of' can classify all subjects and be used to determine precisely where each subject exists in the hierarchy of knowledge. Not only do they solve those structural problems of P107 and other "main type" properties, but by being based on W3C recommendations, instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) also make Wikidata more interoperable with the rest of the Semantic Web. Emw (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:Requests for comment/How to classify items: lots of specific type properties or a few generic ones? is discussing P107 (P107) and what to do with it it too. Filceolaire (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Two versions of "Wikidata main type of item" would lead to confusion. If we would start a second "main type" including templates, categories etc. it wouldn't be a main type, it would be "Wikidata type of item". --Kolja21 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no "Wikidata main type of item" now! P107 is a German library main type! It's not always appropriate for Wikidata and have obvious drawbacks. Infovarius (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like explained above, it's Wikidata main type of item based on GND. Without Q11651459 and Q13384863 we couldn't use P107 in all cases. Please take a look at the list with examples. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like you voted in the vote for the nature of P107 it is not Wikidata main type. Infovarius (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments edit

using property:P31 instead. edit

If no, we can use P31, in my opinion. Made value about wikipedia project page, wikipedia te plate, and wikipedia category to using for p31.--DangSunM (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes edit

No edit

Comments edit

  • Imho Emw has right: we should effort our energy to "article items", but if we want to use "article properties" also for non-article items, we will need to distinguish them to avoid their inclusion in the results of queries. Probably a solution could be a classification system that "automatically rejects" them. --Paperoastro (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create new property:Wikipedia non-item page type edit

(Copied from my comment above, ammended a bit). Create new property 'Wikipedia non-item page type' which only is used to reference wikipedia page types such as 'Wikiproject', 'Wikipedia disambiguation page', 'Wikipedia list', 'Wikipedia portal', 'Wikipedia Help', 'Wikipedia multi-item page', 'Wikipedia category', 'Wikipedia template' etc. (i.e pages which do not correspond to individual wikidata items that can have statements describing them). Each of these page type items can then have property instance of (P31):'Wikipedia non-item page type'.

Having a 'type' property is better than using instance of (P31) because it can include aliases and labels which hint to the editors which are the appropriate items to use with it. Bots can be used to check that it only references items with the instance of (P31)'Wikipedia non-item page' property and highlight discrepancies. Filceolaire (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose if we want to classify non-article items, it is better does not use a new ad hoc property, because in the future we should add it in all queries to exclude (or include) these kind of items (see also my comment in the proposal of is fictional property). Imho it would be better a new classification system that include also non-article items. --Paperoastro (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was that "Wikipedia non-item page type" would include also non-article pages. Filceolaire (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not separate them completely? Littledogboy (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. This would be too special property. Infovarius (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, good solution. I tired to analyze language-dependent page name prefixes to filter non-main namespaces. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create new property: Wikipedia/Wikimedia namespace edit

With values: Category, Template, Project, File and etc. This property does not solve problem with disambigs, but it is well-defined and non-conflicting. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should use instance of (P31) for these, using those values. We can use it for Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) pages too. Filceolaire (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate item type for non-items edit

I'll bite: what's a non-item? Emw (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a non item type is. I'm guessing what you are talking about is actually a bunch of different things and we should use instance of (P31) to identify what class they each belong to and subclass of (P279) to link these various classes together, rather than lumping them all together in one "Item Type". Filceolaire (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking! Two definitions:
  1. A set {Categories, Templates, Projects, Files, Disambigations, Pages in Wikipedia namespace, lists!}.
  2. Wikidata items, which do not correspond to anything in the real world. They are only list of pages in different Wikipedias, that are more or less similar to each other in their technical function, but generally do not really refer to any outside thing, eg list of countries by government debt (Q1343415). Is leg (Q1798008) an instance of something?!
Also, they are not really really notable by themselves, are they?

Littledogboy (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Non-article_items_for_property:p107&oldid=112334640"