Open main menu

Property talk:P179



part of the series
series which contains the subject
Representsseries (Q20937557), series of creative works (Q7725310)
Data typeItem
Template parameter|series= in w:en:Template:Infobox book
Domainwork (Q386724), recurrent event edition (Q27968055), rolling stock class (Q811704) and event sequence (Q15900616)
ExampleThe Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (Q485093)The Chronicles of Narnia (Q483412)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P179 (Q23909088)
See alsocollection (P195)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses121,133
Search for values
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): human (Q5), Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P179#Conflicts with P31, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Qualifiers “series ordinal (P1545), follows (P155), followed by (P156), volume (P478): this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P179#Allowed qualifiers, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Items for TV series episodes should have this
Add P179 or correct P31. Limited to 500 (Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q21191270 . MINUS { ?item wdt:P179 [] } } LIMIT 500
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P179#Items for TV series episodes should have this
Pictogram voting comment.svg Use follows and followed by consistently
Use of P155 or P156 pointing to an item that does not use the opposite qualifier pointing back (Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item p:P179 ?statement . { ?statement ps:P179 ?a; pq:P155 ?y . FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?y p:P179 [ ps:P179 ?a; pq:P156 ?item ]. } } UNION { ?statement ps:P179 ?a; pq:P156 ?y . FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?y p:P179 [ ps:P179 ?a; pq:P155 ?item ]. } } }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P179#Use follows and followed by consistently
This property is being used by:

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


Use for charactersEdit

Query: Should 'series' only be used for works, or does it have a use for any fictional element, such as a character, an item, or a place? --Izno (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it can have a wide range of uses, but what do you mean by a series of places ? --Zolo (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
For example, with universe of The Legend of Zelda, I would do <universe of The Legend of Zelda> series <The Legend of Zelda>. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok, I dont think it is a good idea, as the logic is different. The meaning of this property is: the item is in the series X. However it can certainly be used for "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time", series "The Legend of Zelda". --Zolo (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The universe is undeniably in the series of LotZ, no? --Izno (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
More than anything, I'm looking for a way to associate series elements (characters, etc.) to the series. I would prefer not to introduce a new property to do so, and this one seems good enough. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think so. Saying that the characters of Zelda appear in Zelda has nothing to do with the fact that Zelda is a series. It would be the same if there was only one Zelda game. We probably need a special series for that, but it should be the same for series and non-series (for example characters in movies). --Zolo (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
encountered this problem here: Talk:Q223131 --Shisma (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
what do you think? should I add Sherlock Holmes also as a novel series, even though, there is no article in any wikipedia about it? --Shisma (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a separate issue than the one I was having. Your problem is that, at least in English, the character and the series are the same. That makes the job of relations difficult and I'm not sure how to resolve that (feel free to comment at WD:PC). --Izno (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I think an appropriate relation to use would be part of. Would you agree, Zolo? --Izno (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
That sounds better than "series", but I do not think it is correct either. Theoretically, an item is made up of its parts, but you cannot build a novel from its characters. I think "Sherlock Holmes (work) depicts Sherlock Holmes (character)" would make sense, but I do not think we have correct ways to express things the other way around (I doubt a "depicted in" property would be a good idea). Perhaps just more specific property like "first mentioned in" ? --Zolo (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the character infoboxes on en.Wikipedia at least use "series" as the parameter. First mentioned in isn't good enough in that case (though that is also a parameter used in the en infoboxes). If not this property, I'll be using part of to show the relation, but I'd rather use this one because of that usage on Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Which infobox are you referring to ? I see a "first appearance" and a "in universe" parameter in en:Template:Infobox video game character. "In universe" sounds interesting, but it is different from "series". I think it would make sense to say that trolls are "in universe: Dungeons and Dragons". --Zolo (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Undent: Both ibox character and ibox VG character. In both, series is used in the caption of the image.

Inuniverse in the VG box is used specifically for the elements of the character which are not important in the real world; in other words, it is used exclusively to add the parameters contained in a certain set of sub infobox templates. (Please see the documentation.)

Even if inuniverse were used in the sense that you think is interesting, a character could appear nearly exclusively in a series set in that universe, but which does not encompass all of that universe (in other words, multiple series can be set in the same universe). E.g. Captain Janeway almost exclusively appears in the series Star Trek: Voyager, yet the universe they reside in is the "Star Trek universe" (which also has the series Star Trek: The Next Generation set in it, among others). (Said Star Trek universe article would never be written, at least on en.Wikipedia, because it would be likely to contain fictional information exclusively, which does not show its notability.) --Izno (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I should have read it more carefully. Still, the series and part of properties mean something really different from the series parameter of those infoboxes, and I do not think it is a good idea to overload properties this way. --Zolo (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Do they? Do they really? Series in en here is defined as "the subject is part of a series, whose sum constitutes the object". It's plainly wrong to speak of the episodes of a series as constituting the sum. So, what actually does constitute the sum? Why does our description of what constitutes the sum differ from what you see as being the intent? Part of's description is "this item is a part of that item", which again, I can undeniably say that a character or a game item or a map is part of a series using that definition. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Admittedly "the subject is part of a series, whose sum constitutes the object" is a bit odd, I think it should be something like "the sum of all items with this claim form the object". Ok, that sounds a bit cryptic too... What I mean is that the sum of all Star Trek episodes makes the Star Trek series, but the sum of all characters in Zelda does not make the Zelda series. I guess, a series should be ordered though, that is it should always be possible to add either a "preceded by" or a "followed by" qualifier. --Zolo (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of this propertyEdit

@Izno, Zolo, Shisma, Snipre, TomT0m, Bthfan: Recently there was this discussion Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposed_conventions about how to indicate that some items form part of a sorted list and it was suggested to use this property, but with the name "in series" and the description "this element forms part of a sorted set". Any opposition?

Just for the record: regarding elements that appear in a fictional universe (original question above), there is the property from fictional universe (P1080).--Micru (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

sounds reasonable--Shisma (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"has part" inverse usesEdit

There are 2054 items that have part of the series (P179) targets that have has part (P527) pointing back at the item. 95 of these also have redundant part of (P361) statements. Should these has part (P527) and/or part of (P361) statements be removed? --Yair rand (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in the response to this. I have built some connections between series and their constituents, particularly at Duke University Press Academic Series (Q57084025) and am not sure I did it correctly. The series are part of Duke U Press, but the books are in the series. -Trilotat (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete and replace ?Edit

Actually, I think this property could be replaced by part of (P361), that can be used in more contexts, and as the same time is just as precise semantically. --Zolo (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zolo: Right now I stumbled only upon problems with the coexistence of the two properties like here and extra work through switching like here (@Multichill), also see the #"has part" inverse uses above (@Yair rand). Without deeper consideration this might indeed be a candidate for Wikidata:Properties for deletion. --Marsupium (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
We use this property a lot in the context of TV episodes and artwork series that should be a subclass of series of creative works (Q7725310). Switching to part of (P361) would break that and mess things up. Multichill (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

New qualifierEdit

I think the qualifier subtitle could be added to the property, as many items are related to a single series but may have a subtitle. Esteban16 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory qualifersEdit

Should this property require using either series ordinal (P1545) or follows (P155)/followed by (P156) (or both) as qualifiers? Most uses already do, I think, and a "series" pretty much by definition requires a distinct order, allowing such qualifiers. --Yair rand (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure: P155/P156 are not necessarily very reliable and in some fields items with series use P155/P156 as statements. --- Jura 13:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    Aren't those uses simply errors? P155/P156 are supposed to be used as qualifiers when indicating position in a series, if I understand correctly. --Yair rand (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to "P179" page.