Property talk:P1317

Active discussions


date when the person was known to be active or alive, when birth or death not documented
DescriptionThe date(s) on/during which the subject was active. "Floruit" (abbreivated as "fl.") is commonly used when, for example, an author's birth and death dates are unknown but we do know when they were publishing (see floruit (Q36424) for reference).
Representsfloruit (Q36424)
Data typePoint in time
According to this template: human (Q5) mainly, although there appears to be some case for using it for other things
According to statements in the property:
human (Q5), group of humans (Q16334295), fictional character (Q95074), human who may be fictional (Q21070568), legendary figure (Q13002315) or individual animal (Q26401003)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed valuesyears, dates (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Usage notesContrast with P585 and P746. Use P2031 and P2032 for the start date and end date if they are active for a period.
According to this template:

Niccolò Roccatagliata (Q3875892) => fl. 1593 - 1636
William Baldwin (Q8004982) => fl. 1547
Samuel Austin (Q7410810) => fl. 1629
Walter Dürst (Q550988) => fl. 1960 (born 28 February 1927, possibly alive or dead, no record after 1960)
Abu'l-Faraj Muhammad (Q16146127) => fl. 966 (died 981)
Lucy Coats (Q6698240) => fl. 1979 (alive, but DOB unknown, no record before 1979)
According to statements in the property:
William Baldwin (Q8004982)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
SourceAuthority controls and other biographical/bibliographical sources contain this information. (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property source website for the property (P1896))
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P1317 (Q20990041)
See alsowork period (start) (P2031), work period (end) (P2032), date of birth (P569), date of death (P570), work location (P937), date of disappearance (P746), date of the latest one (P7125)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses
Main statement28,51199% of uses
Qualifier1680.6% of uses
Reference1060.4% of uses
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
  Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1317#type Q5, Q16334295, Q95074, Q21070568, Q13002315, Q26401003, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1317#allowed entity types, SPARQL (new)
Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1317#scope, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Citation needed: the property must have at least one reference (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1317#citation needed, SPARQL (new)
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Floruit 2013?Edit

Just wondering, would this be appropriate for living people born before 1915? (sample) --- Jura 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sports - Floruit 1948Edit

For sportspeople, the property seems useful to indicate the last year they are known to be active or alive (sample). We seems to have many items on people born in the 1910s/1920s and active in the 1930s/1940s with no news available since. Obviously, we don't want to assume they are all dead. --- Jura 06:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I added it as a sample above. --- Jura 06:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jura1: Nowadays, the Walter Dürst (Q550988) is a bad sample, because DOD has been added. How to act in this case ?, should floruit (P1317) be deleted ?.
By the way, it's the sintax used in Barthélemy d'Eyck (Q725551) correct ? To assign a large period + two qualifiers (P580 & P582). Thanks, --Amadalvarez (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


The example values shown above are not valid. Please can someone update them, with valid values, including year-ranges? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is not valid. --- Jura 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Your reply is not helpful. —Phil Boswell (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In what way are they "not valid"? All the examples given seem to be correct: what is the actual problem? —Phil Boswell (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


To record year-ranges, should I use two values? Eg see Niccolò Roccatagliata (Q3875892). I've changed the description to "Enter two values if the subject has produced works during a range of years" but not sure if that's correct. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You could have more than two values: this if some are supported by one source and others by another. --- Jura 11:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: That's a problem, isn't it? If one source claims from1-to1 and another source clais from2-to2, what do we got in the end? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I tried to insert a range in this other way. Maybe better? Comments are welcome. --Accurimbono (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd try to avoid solutions that use qualifiers. BTW "1600s" is just the first decade of the 17th century. --- Jura 11:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Accurimbono: Art historians make PhDs trying to establish precise floruit years, since hand/oeuvre recognition and work attribution depend on them. So losing precision on the claim is much worse. The ULAN editors would kill you for that ;-). Please revert --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It was already reverted. Now I'm adding information from external source (Enciclopedia Treccani). --Accurimbono (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vladimir Alexiev: So I would tend to agree with Accurimbono on the general idea: add a fuzzy value as a statement, and use qualifiers for the more accurate values.

When you say "floruit 1593" + "floruit : 1626". It might mean the source believes the person was active either in 1593 or in 1626, while in the one case, things are clearer. The data model for time contains a "before" and and "after" field, which I think could be useufl here. They are not yet accessible through the UI, but it we store the data as qualifiers, it should be easy to convert them once it is possible.

For queries, both formats imply some amount of adhocity. What if you want to get a list of artists active in 1620 ? With the 2-value format, you need know that an item containing one value < 1620 and one value > 1620 should (probably) be returned. With the one value+qualifiers format, you need to know that if there is a "start date" and an "end date" qualifier, you should check the start date and end date qualifiers. --Zolo (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ok @Zolo: so what qualifiers should we use to indicate Begin and End of range? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev: I think start time (P580) and end time (P582) can do. --Zolo (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zolo: Could you edit Niccolò Roccatagliata (Q3875892) to show us how? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev: I have done it in St. Veronica with the Holy Kerchief (Q9396645) and used it in the infobox of fr:Maître de la Véronique ("période d'activité"). --Zolo (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this property mutually exclusive of date of birth/deathEdit

Should P569 (Date of birth) & P570 (Date of death) be included as "unknown" or will the inclusion of P1317 presume that the birth and death dates are not known? Periglio (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. I also have seen one item where the precision of DOB/DOD was 1 century, but that of "floruit" 1 year.
Note that we could have different sources say different things, so we could have all three. --- Jura 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. In an ideal world you could posit that knowing DOB/DOD subsumes knowing Floruit. But in the real world of integrating messy data from various sources, that is not so. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It could be useful to know when a person was active in the activity for which they are known, as well as their birth and death dates, one or both of which might be known.Jc3s5h (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Project chat discussionEdit

This property is being discussed at Wikidata:Project chat#"known alive for" / floruit. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion in archive: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/10#"known_alive_for"_/_floruit. Eissink (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

Active or aliveEdit

I restored the description, as the property is used for active or alive dates. --- Jura 16:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Using it for a date when the person was alive but inactive is contrary to the dictionary definition of the word. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
What dictionary and edition was that again?
Anyways, what solution do you suggest for the current use of the property? Replacement property and action plan? --- Jura 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
One dictionary is the American Heritage Dictionary, but I've always understood it to only mean activity, not life, so I would expect that any English dictionary or style guide would say the same.
As for what to do about it, it depends on the meaning of the property in other languages. If the other languages include the meaning, just change the English name of the property to "alive". If all the languages agree about the meaning, just change the meaning. Any misuses are the fault of the editors for not noticing that the description is wrong; let the editors fix their mistake. No different than the many other properties who's original description was poor. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
What edition is it of that dictionary? We know definitions can vary and evolve, so accuracy is important.
If you say that it can be any style guide, maybe you should look around WMF sites.
I don't think the label in other languages matters as the scope of the property is more or less the same since creation. --- Jura 13:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed.: "The period during which a person, school, or movement was most active or flourishing."
  • Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed., p. 506: "fl. floruit, flourished (used with a date to indicate the productive years of a historical figure whose birth and death dates are unknown)
  • MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 7th ed., p. 242: "fl. flourished, or reached greatest development or influence (from Latin floruit; used before dates of historical figures when birth and death dates are not known: 'fl. 1200')
Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at w:Floruit. Interestingly, if I recall correctly, I came across an entry in DNB that used your definition as well, but ODNB for the same text used the one at WP/WD one. --- Jura 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article seems to have a reference supporting the "alive" concept. If this can be confirmed, I suppose we should go with the more inclusive meaning. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
en:Floruit#Usage says that the same Latin word is used in three different meanings according to the context:
  • "Broadly": "the peak of activity",
  • "in genealogy and historical writing": "was alive" when birth or death dates are unknown,
  • "in art history": the period of artistic "activity".
I suspect both meanings "was at his/her/its peak of activity" and "was alive" have been used on WD, respectively for artists and for historical figures with unknown birth/death date, which would mean the present property needs to be split into two properties. Oliv0 (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Has this been answered by creating work period (start) (P2031) and work period (end) (P2032) for "active period", meaning that floruit (P1317) is now only "was alive"? Oliv0 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The introduction of Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) and the corresponding practice seems to tell us that the answer to my question is yes. Oliv0 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can this property be used for groups of people or cultural entities such as religions?Edit

Consider the ancient religious group Collyridianism (who worshipped the Virgin Mary as a goddess). We know they must have existed c. 375 CE, since Epiphanius of Salamis attacked them in his Panarion written in approximately that year, but since that book is basically the only evidence we have for their existence, beyond that we can only really guess as to when they began to exist and when they ceased to exist. Given this situation, would it be appropriate to use this property with a value of 375 CE? More generally, should the definition of this property be extended to include groups of people and cultural artifacts (such as religions or languages)? SJK (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on proper useEdit

In June, there has been a discussion on this property in the Project chat, see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/06#floruit_(fl.). Eissink (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

Return to "P1317" page.