Property talk:P1086
Documentation
number of protons found in the nucleus of the atom
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1086#Range
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1086#Type Q11344, Q25276, Q37147, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1086#integer, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1086#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1086#Entity types
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Discussion edit
Hello, I think that items using this property should have either chemical element (Q11344), or isotope (Q25276). Thus this property could be used for isotopes such as plutonium-239 (Q1141329). Could you add this constraint if you agree? Pamputt (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No bounds edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry There is now the new no-bounds constraint (Q51723761) which was already added to this property. Since atomic numbers are countable quantities without uncertainty, I suggest to remove all bounds from the values of this property. The current situation can be evaluated with this query:
SELECT ?item ?value ?lower ?upper ?diff ?unit WHERE {
?item p:P1086/psv:P1086 ?psv .
?psv wikibase:quantityAmount ?value .
OPTIONAL { ?psv wikibase:quantityUnit ?unit } .
OPTIONAL { ?psv wikibase:quantityLowerBound ?lower; wikibase:quantityUpperBound ?upper }
BIND( (?upper - ?lower) / 2 AS ?diff) .
} ORDER BY ASC(?diff)
4902 out of 4930 claims of this property have bounds, and all of them are exactly ±0.
If nobody comes up with a reason to keep them, I will remove all of these ±0 bounds. Any comments? —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, please fix. Thanks for
- keeping an eye on this
- offering to resolve the issue
- informing us.
- --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Fixing sounds good to me. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. Wostr (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Now all done. Someone already made the constraint mandatory, as there are no violations at this time. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks much better without the bounds.
--- Jura 06:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)