Property talk:P463
Documentation
organization, club or musical group to which the subject belongs. Do not use for membership in ethnic or social groups, nor for holding a political position, such as a member of parliament (use P39 for that)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P463#Value type Q43229, Q14623646, Q16334295, Q14514600, Q49773, Q1729207, Q16887380, Q34627, Q48204, Q49459835, Q2638480, Q55657615, Q264965, Q13473501, Q431603, Q627272, Q1900326, Q56561357, Q16970, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P463#Type Q215627, Q43229, Q95074, Q49848, Q183366, Q1048835, Q14623646, Q13002315, Q5, Q63188808, Q63188683, Q63187345, Q6857706, Q214339, Q13473501, Q4835091, Q16334295, Q3147836, Q56561357, Q35127, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P463#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (member of (P463)) 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/P463#Contemporary, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P463#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P463#Scope, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
if [item A] has this property (P463) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history.
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P463#Contemporary, SPARQL
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Value Society of Jesus (Q36380) will be automatically replaced to value Society of Jesus (Q36380) and moved to religious order (P611) property. Testing: TODO list |
|
|
Value Mechitarists (Q663304) will be automatically replaced to value Mechitarists (Q663304) and moved to religious order (P611) property. Testing: TODO list |
Untitled
editI've seen this property is used in claims like "member of: Royal Society". However, there are several different kind of membership of Royal Society, including Fellow, Honorary Fellow, Royal Fellow and Foreign Member. How do we distinguish these different memberships? Do we need a qualifier for this?--Stevenliuyi (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can we can add "instance of" ("instance of fellow", "instance of permanent member").
"must not be used for ethnic or social groups"
editThat would indeed be odd to say "member of Arabs/Jews", and actually there is a separate ethnicity property. On the other hand I am not sure it would necessarily be wrong to use this property for Indian castes or this sort of things. --Zolo (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment On first read of the description, I thought it was maybe trying to say that the property could not be used for organizations that are members of something. I'm adding a bit to clarify this so we don't unintentionally scare off legitimate use. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
voluntary?
editI think the word voluntary should be dropped, it suggests the person is unpaid. The payment side of it does seem all that relevant.
I'm suggesting good use of this property would be as a qualifier with Member of Parliament (which is normally paid). See this example: Q192 under offices held. Danrok (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure voluntary here doesn't mean "unpaid", but rather "non-compulsory". Silver hr (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense. Danrok (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- For politicians, "position held: member of parliament" (if a suitable property for "member of parliament" exists) seems to be more appropriate than "member of: parliament". Andrew Gray (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Is "voluntary" too limiting?
edit"Voluntary" is used here to emphasise that we don't want "intrinsic" properties like "member: French people" or "member: France". I agree this is senible.
The problem is that there are non-voluntary organisations of which someone can be a member, for example, military units (see recent discussion at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/05#Military units) - someone may be conscripted and serve in a military unit against their will, but "member of" still seems the most sensible way to represent the affiliation between that person and that unit.
Any objection to extending the description to reflect this sort of use? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Has the matter been settled? I agree that this property should be okay of a military unit the person has served in... -Ash Crow (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done, agreed. Emw (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Only persons?
editIf this property should only be used for persons, what property should be used for organisations?
Examples:
- Our Ukraine (Q2299546) is (or was) a member of the political coalition Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc (Q788180)
- Uppsala University (Q185246) is a member of the organisation Matariki Network of Universities (Q1908073)
--Kolja21 (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason why this property should only be used for persons. Countries and organizations can be part of coalitions and alliances as well, so I don't see why we can't use this property for them. —Wylve (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Wylve. This is extremely useful for territorial organziations in France, for example a commune of France (Q484170) which is member of an association of French communes (Q2707796) Kvardek du (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Houses/Families
editShould this property be used to indicate members of a noble family or house? (E.g. William Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (Q6485621) is a member of House of Courtenay (Q429499).) - PKM (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- PKM, yes. Emw (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thank you. - PKM (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Years later I oppose. We have family (P53) for this. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great, thank you. - PKM (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Use for organizations/countries
editThis property is also in widespread use for countries and such being members of organizations. As such, I've removed the human-based constraints. Any objections? If this is to be only for humans, we should probably set up an equivalent property for organizations and have a bot replace the various statements. --Yair rand (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion it's perfectly fine to use this property for humans and organizations. --Pasleim (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In the list of constraint violations, many entries appear because they're members of a fictional organization (Q14623646) (which is a fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) of organization (Q43229)), rather than a subclass). Should this be extended to allow that? --Oravrattas (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
human, not just person?
editWhen an individual is listed as being a 'member of' something (in the case that brought my attention to this property it was a Political Party), this is currently displayed as a constraint violation... That is because this property allows instances of "Person" but not "Human". Is that correct?? I would assume that since "instance of Human" is the way we structure individual people, then that should be an allowed value... am I wrong? Wittylama (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Korean alias
edit@Hibm98:
다른 이름이 과도하게 많으면 가독성을 해치기 때문에 (특히 모니터가 작은 환경에서는요) 적당한 선에서 다른 이름의 수를 유지하여 주시기를 부탁드립니다. 그리고 대부분 중복되는 어휘니까요. — regards, Revi 00:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- 네 알겠습니다. --hibm98 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Allowed Qualifiers
editHello,
it woud be good to allow the Qualifier object has role, see my example here: Q15134120. What do you think ?
Greetings --McSearch (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added another qualifier:
- allowed qualifiers constraint: property: affiliation
To describe to which particular section of Academia Europaea a member belongs.
Example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q49242534#Q49242534$4ac03cfd-4609-4af5-5fa5-b09b958fb9ac
Bands
editHello, what property must be used with persons that belongs to a music band? For example Freddie Mercury (Q15869) is member of (P463) Queen (Q15862) and Paul McCartney (Q2599) part of (P361) The Beatles (Q1299) and he is member of (P463) American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Q463303). Thanks, Juan Mayordomo (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's better to use member of (P463) because it is not transititve. If we use Paul McCartney (Q2599)part of (P361)The Beatles (Q1299), we can also say Paul McCartney's liverpart of (P361)Paul McCartney (Q2599), and then say Paul McCartney's liverpart of (P361)The Beatles (Q1299), which... is not wrong, but not exactly useful or interesting. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 07:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If a person is member of an organization or an organization is member of a group they mostly have a member number, which can be series ordinal (P1545). Se my examples MTV Ingolstadt (Q447934) or DJK Abenberg (Q1153948). --Balû (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Balû: The issue is that your membership number can change so it may not represent an ordinal, or a consistent ordinal through time, plus membership numbers can be part of a couple of series, ie. year and number, name component and number, etc. It seems that they are more of a label than an ordinal — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I added P1545 as qualifier, but with the idea of using it with values like "1" and "2" for US and UK UNESCO membership, see Q30#P463 and Q145#P463. --- Jura 11:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
added "stated as" as a valid constraint
editI have added "object named as (P1932)" as a valid constraint as sometimes the reference will give a variation of the name used, hopefully always in the alternatives that exist for the organisation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding P463 vs P361
editCan we use member of (P463) to be member of a Holocaust deportation convoy? Like here :Q98687617
I would rather use the property "is part of" part of (P361) like here Q457505. If I am not mistaken, to be member of includes a voluntary aspect not included in "to be a part of". @Kertraon: for information.
Inverse property?
editIsn't this in need of an inverse property like has member
Perhaps this inverse could be required too?
--Lectrician1 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1 An inverse property might be relevant for small ensembles, such as a music band, however it would be inconvenient for very large arrays, such as the members of a membership organization. In this scenario, the requirement to state an inverse property would be too impractical.
- The inverse label item – has member (Q65971553) – is sufficient in my opinion. If you wish to display lists of individual members from the group item page, activate the relateditems widget in your preference, and then click on "Related items" at the bottom of the page : you'll see the entire list of inverse statements. Fjjulien (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Good practices for qualifying and and referencing “member of” statements in the context of a membership organization
edit“How to document membership statuses when uploading (and re-uploading) a membership organization's dataset to Wikidata?”
“member of (P463)”, like many other properties describing relationships between organizations and/or persons (Wikidata property for items about people or organisations (Q57955292)), is a time-sensitive relationship. These statements become true at a given point in time and they may no longer be applicable at a later point in time. Unfortunately, several membership organizations do not maintain explicit records of their members’ start and end times. The validity of membership statuses is implicit, based on the presence or absence of an individual in the membership organization's member directory.
This presents challenges when uploading a membership organization's members dataset to Wikidata : should a “member of” relationship between a given organization and their membership organization be stated in Wikidata if no time qualifier can be provided?
Members of the WikiProject Performing arts have encountered these challenges over the course of batch uploads, and they defined the following series of good practices for inferring and documenting membership data in Wikidata. These practices are equally useful for manual edits.
For the initial upload of a membership organization's members dataset
edit- When a member entity is uploaded for the first time, unless the exact start time (P580) is explicit in the dataset, the “member of” statement should be qualified with latest start date (P8555). In this scenario, the date value would correspond to the date when the membership status was inferred from the source dataset (i.e., the date when the data was extracted/consulted from the source dataset).
- In the reference, the retrieved (P813) date should be stated, and the value should also correspond to the date when the data was extracted (or consulted) from the source dataset.
- Note: While stating the same date as both a qualifier and a reference may seem redundant, this is necessary in order to maintain membership data over time (see below).
- Example of an item with a new “member of” statement: New Works (Q112510133)
- Note: While stating the same date as both a qualifier and a reference may seem redundant, this is necessary in order to maintain membership data over time (see below).
For subsequent uploads of a membership organization's members dataset
edit- The previous and current datasets should be compared to identify member entities that appeared in the previous dataset(s) and no longer appear in the current dataset (and vice-versa – member entities that only appear in the current dataset).
- Note: If no copy of the previous dataset was kept, you may retrieve this information from Wikidata by running a query such as [this one https://w.wiki/5$o3].
- If a member appears in both datasets (in other words, no change in membership status can be observed between the two datasets), it is possible to infer that the membership status is ongoing. For those ongoing members:
- The retrieved (P813) date should be updated, and the value should correspond to the date when the data was extracted (or consulted) from the source dataset.
- If a member no longer appears in the current dataset, it is possible to infer that the membership status was terminated at some point between the previous upload and the current upload. For those terminated members:
- The following qualifier statement should be added: latest end date (P12506): ;
- The main “member of” statement should be deprecated;
- The following qualifier statement should be added: reason for deprecated rank (P2241)obsolete (Q107356532);
- In the reference, the retrieved (P813) date should be updated to correspond to the date when the current dataset was extracted for upload.
- Example of an item with an expired “member of” statement: Carrefour Socioculturel Au Vieux Théâtre (Q111846607).
- If a member entity was not in the previous dataset but appears in the current dataset, it is possible to infer that the membership status started at some point between the previous upload and current upload. For those new members:
- The member of (P463) main statement should be added;
- The following qualifier should be added : latest start date (P8555): ;
- In the reference, the retrieved (P813) date should be stated, and the value should correspond to the date when the data was extracted (or consulted) from the source dataset.
Documenting membership data in this fashion will reduce the ambiguity as to the validity (or expiry) of “member of” statements. This will be useful for Wikidata users who rely on “member of” statements as an indication (among many) of the notoriety of an item. Fjjulien (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- This generally sounds fine; however I think as a whole in Wikidata we discourage deprecating statements that were true at some point in time - "obsolete" should not be a valid reason for deprecation. Having the end date qualifier should be clear enough. Start and end dates apply to many relationships so this shouldn't be too unusual for handling with eg. SPARQL queries. If you want to make this a firm policy then probably an RFC would be appropriate. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith I agree that statements should generally not be deprecated. For example, members of a rock band may come and go, but information about former members continues to be of historical value even after a member's departure. However, in the case at hand (affiliation to a membership organization), participants in the discussion deemed that these particular "member of" statements lose most of their value once a membership relationship has ceased to exist and they therefore recommended that these statements be deprecated. The practices described above are a reflection of the consensus that emerged over these particular discussions with the WikiProject Performing arts community. Ultimatly, either approach - deprecated rank or normal rank - can be fine, as long as it is applied consistently for the maintenance of a given membership organization's dataset. Fjjulien (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This shouldn't have P31 organization, I think
editI discovered this has P31 while testing the new tool I'm making. I think this is a mistake: the concept of being a member of an organization definitely isn't itself an organization. However it is convenient for me to have this with the feature I'm testing right now, so I won't change it right now. If you see this (say, a few days after I made this comment) and I forgot to remove it, please do so M.alten.tue (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh - didn't read through your comment; I reverted the edit that added that statement. If you want another sample to test with you should probably use Sandbox-Property (P2368) which is intended for tests like that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh well...
- I don't think I can use P2368 but I'll find a solution. I'm working with schemas (on a new UI for the schema validator, see my profile) and it was convenient that due to this error schema E98 had a conformant and non-conformant item as the first two items, since I am implementing the feature to show conformant items only on demand, and visually different from non-conformant ones. But I can look for a different schema that has the same situation for the last tests M.alten.tue (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)