Property talk:P40
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2pou in topic Stepchild
Documentation
child
subject has object as child. Do not use for stepchildren—use "relative" (P1038), qualified with "type of kinship" (P1039)
subject has object as child. Do not use for stepchildren—use "relative" (P1038), qualified with "type of kinship" (P1039)
| Description | the subject is parent of the linked object, which is its child. The child should have a reverse property, either father (P22) or mother (P25). | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Represents | child (Q29514218) | ||||||||||||||||
| Data type | Item | ||||||||||||||||
| Template parameter | en:Template:Infobox_person (children). | ||||||||||||||||
| Domain | person (Q215627), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324), animal (Q729), deity (Q178885), mythical animal (Q24334299), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), sibling group (Q16979650), human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568), legendary figure (Q13002315), married couple (Q3046146), couple (Q219160), personification (Q207174), animalisation (Q2135501), hypothetical person (Q75855169), cultivar (Q4886), imaginary character (Q115537581), individual (Q795052) or human (Q5) | ||||||||||||||||
| Example | Kirk Douglas (Q104027) → Michael Douglas (Q119798) Virgin Mary (Q345) → Jesus (Q302) Zeus (Q34201) → Athena (Q37122) Lord Byron (Q5679) → Ada Lovelace (Q7259) Charles II of England (Q122553) → James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth (Q140235) | ||||||||||||||||
| Robot and gadget jobs | The consistency check gadget (see code) checks if the linked objects are linking back to the analyzed page as father or mother (asymmetric reciprocal relations), but does currently not discover if links are missing from the analyzed page to objects that are linking to it. | ||||||||||||||||
| Tracking: same | no label (Q42533370) | ||||||||||||||||
| Tracking: usage | Category:Pages using Wikidata property P40 (Q23908975) | ||||||||||||||||
| See also | number of children (P1971), sibling (P3373), mother (P25), father (P22) | ||||||||||||||||
| Lists |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Proposal discussion | [not applicable Proposal discussion] | ||||||||||||||||
| Current uses |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Search for values |
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), family name (Q101352), male given name (Q12308941), female given name (Q11879590), unisex given name (Q3409032), given name (Q202444), year (Q577), Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Conflicts with P31, hourly updated report, SPARQL
Value type “human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324), animal (Q729), deity (Q178885), mythical animal (Q24334299), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), sibling group (Q16979650), human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568), legendary figure (Q13002315), personification (Q207174), animalisation (Q2135501), fictional sibling group (Q21191150), hypothetical person (Q75855169), cultivar (Q4886), fictional human formerly considered to be historical (Q64520857), imaginary character (Q115537581), individual (Q795052)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31), subclass of (P279) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324), animal (Q729), deity (Q178885), mythical animal (Q24334299), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), sibling group (Q16979650), human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568), legendary figure (Q13002315), personification (Q207174), animalisation (Q2135501), fictional sibling group (Q21191150), hypothetical person (Q75855169), cultivar (Q4886), fictional human formerly considered to be historical (Q64520857), imaginary character (Q115537581), individual (Q795052) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: Dyēus (Q796807)List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Value type Q5, Q95074, Q4271324, Q729, Q178885, Q24334299, Q21070598, Q16979650, Q21070568, Q13002315, Q207174, Q2135501, Q21191150, Q75855169, Q4886, Q64520857, Q115537581, Q795052, SPARQL
Type “person (Q215627), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324), animal (Q729), deity (Q178885), mythical animal (Q24334299), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), sibling group (Q16979650), human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568), legendary figure (Q13002315), married couple (Q3046146), couple (Q219160), personification (Q207174), animalisation (Q2135501), hypothetical person (Q75855169), cultivar (Q4886), imaginary character (Q115537581), individual (Q795052), human (Q5)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)” with classes “person (Q215627), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324), animal (Q729), deity (Q178885), mythical animal (Q24334299), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), sibling group (Q16979650), human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568), legendary figure (Q13002315), married couple (Q3046146), couple (Q219160), personification (Q207174), animalisation (Q2135501), hypothetical person (Q75855169), cultivar (Q4886), imaginary character (Q115537581), individual (Q795052), human (Q5)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Type Q215627, Q95074, Q4271324, Q729, Q178885, Q24334299, Q21070598, Q16979650, Q21070568, Q13002315, Q3046146, Q219160, Q207174, Q2135501, Q75855169, Q4886, Q115537581, Q795052, Q5, SPARQL
Property “sex or gender (P21)” declared by target items of “child (P40)”: If [item A] has this property with value [item B], [item B] is required to have property “sex or gender (P21)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: Dyēus (Q796807)List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Target required claim P21, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Item P21, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Item P21, search, SPARQL
Qualifiers “kinship to subject (P1039), series ordinal (P1545), together with (P1706), object has role (P3831), mother (P25), father (P22), sibling (P3373), present in work (P1441), sourcing circumstances (P1480), nature of statement (P5102), statement is subject of (P805), statement supported by (P3680), statement disputed by (P1310), reason for preferred rank (P7452), reason for deprecated rank (P2241), applies to work (P10663), approved by (P790), end time (P582), start time (P580), latest start date (P8555), earliest date (P1319), earliest end date (P8554), latest date (P1326), has cause (P828), end cause (P1534), date of death (P570), date of birth (P569), object named as (P1932)”: this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Scope, SPARQL
None of 1 (Q199), 2 (Q200), 3 (Q201), 4 (Q202): value must not be any of the specified items.
Replacement property: number of children (P1971)
Replacement values: (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Replacement property: number of children (P1971)
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#none of, SPARQL
Contemporaries:
if [item A] has this property (child (P40)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: Louis X of France (Q8384), Jan Kanty Moszyński (Q1681922), George I, Duke of Pomerania (Q314810), François Fagel (Q15875402), Süsü (Q85243498), Giuseppe Di Vagno (Q3770471), Hans Wachtmeister the elder (Q6228002), Gustaf Adolf Sparre (Q50976340), Wartislaw IV, Duke of Pomerania (Q319946), Albert Henry Carroll (Q107671182), Jonas Witsen (Q62071430), Célia de Paulstra (Q111356887), Yūgo Muramatsu (Q114009948)if [item A] has this property (child (P40)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Contemporary, SPARQL
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. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Entity types
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Renaming edit
I've changed this from "Children" to "child", since all the other properties are phrased as singular. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- We probably need to talk about this somewhere else, but I think it looks more natural to use plural for properties like children, as we often have several of them, and singular for those we have usually just one (like death place). --Zolo (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The parameter name is "children", så I added that as alias. Mange01 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Children: Carlos Miguel Prieto, Isabel Prieto, Mauricio Prieto Iprieto1 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete / Replace? edit
We have relatives properties in pairs like Sister/Brother, Father/Mother, so I would advocate to have Daughter/Son as well instead of Child(ren).
— Danny B. 17:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Personnally, I would rather do it the other way round: merge sister and brother, as it is simpler, and avoids problem with the case when a child changes sex (admittedly not a very common case, but that happens) --Zolo (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also a possibility. I was aiming for consistency and chosed assimilation to majority. Any solution, which is consistent is better than this inconsistency.
— Danny B. 06:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also a possibility. I was aiming for consistency and chosed assimilation to majority. Any solution, which is consistent is better than this inconsistency.
Stepchild edit
Should be this property used for stepchild/stepchildren? Or we need to create separate one? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've held off using child for step-children, only adding child to biological parents, because of the comments here and here. I couldn't find any information about qualifiers so I don't know how/when that will be implemented. I don't know if there has been a discussion on Project Chat about the use family properties like there has been for geographical subdivisions, maybe this should be settled properly now bots are starting to run through lists of people? /Ch1902 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Qualifier instance of (P31) can be used to specify the type of child - step, adopted, in-laws. Filceolaire (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe kinship to subject (P1039) can specify the type of relationship, such as adopted son / daughter. Aude (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- kinship to subject (P1039) seems perfect here. I'll add an example. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done (one for illegitimate, one for step), with an example on sibling (P3373) as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Based on the use other relationship properties (notably the inverse properties father (P22) and mother (P25)), we might rather want to use relative (P1038). There it can also be qualified with kinship to subject (P1039), so no information is lost.
--- Jura 14:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)- It took me quite a while to track down how to do an inverse of stepparent (P3448) since a separate property proposal for stepchild failed a couple times (first and second). Those proposals suggested using this property child (P40), qualified, but then here it says not to use it... Anyway, I updated the description, and added some aliases to relative (P1038). Hopefully the auto-redirection will solve this for the future. -2pou (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not differentiating between biological relations and other relations is a major problem as it makes inference difficult. Please do not use the child property for step-children - use the relative property instead. Infrastruktur (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the best approach, but someone may want to update other aliases and guidelines to capture the same for adopted children (unless they're already out there somewhere--I'm still finding my way through a lot of WikiData). I'm not even sure the proper term for siblings via adoption. -2pou (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not differentiating between biological relations and other relations is a major problem as it makes inference difficult. Please do not use the child property for step-children - use the relative property instead. Infrastruktur (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It took me quite a while to track down how to do an inverse of stepparent (P3448) since a separate property proposal for stepchild failed a couple times (first and second). Those proposals suggested using this property child (P40), qualified, but then here it says not to use it... Anyway, I updated the description, and added some aliases to relative (P1038). Hopefully the auto-redirection will solve this for the future. -2pou (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Based on the use other relationship properties (notably the inverse properties father (P22) and mother (P25)), we might rather want to use relative (P1038). There it can also be qualified with kinship to subject (P1039), so no information is lost.
- Done (one for illegitimate, one for step), with an example on sibling (P3373) as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
consistency check gadget edit
Included and working in User:JonnyJD/consistency_check.js (together with related father,mother,stepfather etc.). The script currently doesn't require a stepchild to be listed as child. --JonnyJD (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Group of children edit
I think instances of sibling group (Q16979650) (and its subclasses) should be accepted values. For example "Lot (Q40574) : child (P40) → Lot's daughters (Q7056503)". -Ash Crow (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
(independently of their age) edit
What is "independently of their age"? Independent of the age of the child or independent of the age of the parent? Why do we need this parenthetical reminder? --RAN (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): this was added by Verdy p (Special:Diff/318691770, Special:Diff/318691777), I can't find a discussion about that and I don't see the reason either. I suggest to remove this uneccesary precision or at the very least to rewrite it to be clear. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you found what I was talking about, I just now realized I left no link to an example. Thanks. --RAN (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the idea is that it means "X can be categorised as a child of Y even if X is too old to be called "a child".". But I'd agree we don't need it. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess that makes a little bit of sense. The English property would probably be better as "offspring" and "number of offspring" as opposed to child" and "number of children" ... what do you think? Or do you think just one person was confused? --RAN (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would leave it as "children". It's much better to stick with the more commonly used term. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess that makes a little bit of sense. The English property would probably be better as "offspring" and "number of offspring" as opposed to child" and "number of children" ... what do you think? Or do you think just one person was confused? --RAN (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the idea is that it means "X can be categorised as a child of Y even if X is too old to be called "a child".". But I'd agree we don't need it. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Contemporary constraint edit
Are children born after the fathers death so uncommon that it is practical to handle them with exception to constraint (P2303) or could the contemporary constraint be trimmed to allow for nine months slack? /ℇsquilo 12:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest that the constraint should be relaxed. Of course a father may die before the birth of the child. Schwede66 (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can someone do that? I find it quite surprising that posthumous births are flagged as possibly incorrect. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Foster/adopted child? edit
Should the property "child" (P40) refer to not only biological child, but also foster and/or adopted child? Should an item's foster/adopted child be added to the item's statement "child" (P40) with qualifier "type of kinship" (P1039), or to the item's statement "relative" (P1038) with qualifier "type of kinship" (P1039)? If P40 does not refer to stepchild (as Jura1 put it at 14:36, 23 October 2017), why should it refer to foster/adopted child? The edit history of P40's English description is as follows:
- 23:37, 4 February 2013: "offspring of item";
- 23:43, 4 February 2013: "subject's offspring";
- 02:13, 5 February 2013 : "the subject has the object as their child";
- 07:38, 16 December 2014: "the subject has the object as their biological child";
- 10:11, 12 February 2015: "the subject has the object as their biological and/ or legal child";
- 21:18, 13 June 2015: "subject has the object as their biological offspring";
- 14:45, 4 April 2016: "subject has the object as their offspring";
- 14:46, 4 April 2016: "subject has the object in their family as their offspring";
- 14:46, 4 April 2016 : "subject has the object in their family as their offspring son or daughter";
- 15:00, 4 April 2016: "subject has the object in their family as their offspring son or daughter (independantly of their age)";
- 02:21, 6 June 2016: "subject has the object in their family as their offspring son or daughter (independently of their age)";
- 12:02, 5 July 2019: "subject has object as biological, foster, and/or adoptive child".
Different editors have different opinions on this issue and it seems that there has been no discussion on it. I removed the current English description of P40 and hope that we can reach a consensus before giving a new description. A relevant question is whether father (P22) or mother (P25) should also refer to foster/adoptive father/mother. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- See Property_talk:P40#Stepchild above about stepchildren. Frequently, no difference is made between adopted children and biological children. So it's unclear why P40 shouuld do that. --- Jura 12:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- So you support that P40 should include adopted children (Q25858158). Is my understanding correct? If so, does this mean that father (P22) and mother (P25) should also include adoptive father/mother? And how about foster children (Q2793701)? Should P40 also include foster children? --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Contemporary constraint false positive with values like "13. century" edit
On "John of Brienne" (Q332704), the child "Louis of Brienne" (Q1390153) has this contemporary constraint issue: "The entities John of Brienne and Louis of Brienne should be contemporary to be linked through child, but the latest end value of John of Brienne is 23 March 1237 and the earliest start value of Louis of Brienne is 13. century." Since the 13th century is the year 1200-1299, this appears to be a false positive, since any year 1237 or earlier would be a valid match. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
constraint: dates edit
Currently, dates, e.g. point in time (P585), trigger a constraint violation to kinship to subject (P1039) for father/child. If adoption date is known, how shall the dates be added for the <adoption> relationship? Thank you for your advice.
jshieh (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Same with dates b. c.: Why shouldn't a person born in 16th century b. c. be contemporary with her or his father who died in 1540 b. c.? Vollbracht (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
contemporary constraint does not handle dates with a precision of decade correctly edit
This constraint should likely use 1589 as the latest date for the decade specified as the "1580s" (1580–1589) rather than 1580, as it appears to do (or possibly it could just check that the first three digits of the 4 digit date match "158"). For example, Thibault Métezeau died in the 1580s, sometime between May 1580 and 18 December 1586. His son Clément was born on 6 February 1581, but the constraint flags it as an error. Don't know if it is feasible, but I suppose the constraint might ideally check whether earliest and latest date qualifiers are specified. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Same with centuries - at least b. c. Vollbracht (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)