Property talk:P576

Active discussions


dissolved, abolished or demolished date
point in time at which the subject (organisation, building) ceased to exist; see "date of official closure" (P3999) for closing a facility, "service retirement" (P730) for retiring equipment, "discontinued date" (P2669) for stopping a product
DescriptionThe date (or year) the organization was dissolved.
Representsdissolved, abolished or demolished (Q29933798)
Data typePoint in time
Template parameteren:template:Infobox football club dissolved
According to this template: organization (e.g. football clubs)
According to statements in the property:
organization (Q43229), administrative territorial entity (Q56061), concrete object (Q4406616), recurring event (Q15275719), position (Q4164871), human-geographic territorial entity (Q15642541), fictional entity (Q14897293), marriage (Q8445), content rating category (Q23649976), rule (Q1151067), award (Q618779), database (Q8513) or website (Q35127)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed valuesBetween 0 and 10000 years after inception (P571), if present (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Usage notesSee "date of official closure" (P3999) for closing a facility, "service retirement" (P730) for retiring equipment, "discontinued date" (P2669) for stopping a product.
ExampleTeam Bath F.C. (Q4384416)
Lehman Brothers (Q212900)
Harmonien (Q42717640)
Tracking: sameno label (Q27673343)
Tracking: differencesno label (Q22013000)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P576 (Q20990069)
Tracking: local yes, WD noCategory:Dissolved or abolished not in Wikidata, but available on Wikipedia (Q22012999)
<complementary property>inception (P571)
See alsoservice retirement (P730), end time (P582), discontinued date (P2669), date of official closure (P3999)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses
Main statement208,70299.4% of uses
Qualifier1,2540.6% of uses
Reference22<0.1% of uses
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Difference with “inception (P571)” within range [0, 10000]: the difference with property “inception (P571)” should be in the range from “0” to “10000”. (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P576#Diff within range, hourly updated report, SPARQL (new)
Single value: this property generally contains a single value. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P576#Single value, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449): 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/P576#scope, SPARQL, 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.)

This property is being used by:

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


Being a counterpart of inception (P571) I suggest to extent the meaning of this property to destruction:
date of dissolution/destruction
date on which the organisation/object was dissolved/destoyed
--Spischot (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So, why not merging with date of death (P570)? --Ricordisamoa 05:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It is hard to make common label for these events at least in russian. For person it must be named "дата смерти", for organization "дата прекращения существования". Term "смерть" is not applicable for organizations and "прекращение существования" is not applicable for person. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Change description/domain in accordance with inception (P571)?Edit

I wonder if this property here should apply to objects in general (when there is no better, more specialized property that can be used)? In contrast inception (P571) says for the English description: " when the organization/object was founded/created" and "Domain: organization or object". Example why I would find such a change useful: I could use this property in 2009–10 ACB season (Q2736322) for indicating on what date that sports season started/ended. Though one must admit that a sports season is not a physical object, but what kind of object is meant here anyway? --Bthfan (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For time spans like sport seasons, rather use start time (P580) and end time (P582) directly. LaddΩ chat ;) 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
start time (P580) and end time (P582) say that they should be used as qualifiers only normally though? Anyway, someone over at Wikidata:Project_chat (actually I told people to discuss this here ;) suggested to use significant event (P793) with two new events "season start or opening ceremony"/"season end or closing ceremony" together with "point in time" as qualifier. I think using the same domain on inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) still makes sense. --Bthfan (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes because religionsEdit

I've extended the scope of this property to "disappearance" with a range of 10000 years, in order to use it with religions. — nojhan () 18:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop using this property to depict building demolitionEdit

We have currently 2 ways to define that a building was destroyed:

The main problem is about dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) which doesn't have in its label (at least in English, German French and Spanish) any hint for the use of the property for building description. significant event (P793) by definition is more flexible and then perhaps less explicit but there is no risk of creating non-sense like dissoultion of building or abolition of building. I propose then to promote the only use of significant event (P793) as structure for building demolition. This means changing the labels/description of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) and the use constraints before curating the bad use of this property mainly by solving the violation constraints. Snipre (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Snipre: Speaking as someone who often extracts information from Wikidata via SPARQL, I am very sympathetic to the argument that we should (whenever possible) avoid having multiple ways to express the same fact. Unfortunately, the need to support not only efficient manual curation but also expressive representation means that it is not always possible to achieve this.
The phenomenon we have here is sometimes described as "skipping the event". If the end of an entity is simple and uninteresting, then we can simply record its time with a simple predicate such as "end time" or "dissolution". When we want to say more about the event (such as place of death, cause of death, agent of demolition, reason for demolition, etc.) we either find ourselves adding more and more properties for describing the aspects of the end event directly on the item being ended, or we reify an end event, and use more generic properties on it. Wikidata has a convenient halfway-house for this whereby we can add a "significant event" pointing to a collection (such as demolition) with properties as qualifiers without trouble to reify the event explicitly. A third way to represent it would be to reify the destruction of the building as an individual event (e.g. Implosion of Radio Network House (Q3149446)). Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Bovlb Step by step: do you agree to stop the use of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) as a way to mention that a building was destroyed ? That's the main question even if you can have a long list of qualifiers to add. Is dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) correctly formulated to describe the end of the existence of a material thing ? Can we use dissolve or abolish when speaking about a material thing ? Only a semantic question, we forget about Wikidata for the moment. Snipre (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I question the achievability of "only one way to say it", and pointing out that you're actually dealing with three ways here. But I don't oppose a proposal to narrow the applicability of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576). I note that P576 has no subject item of this property (P1629) assertion (which, despite the name, defines a restriction on the _object_ of a property), which would have helped to resolve its applicability. Bovlb (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm favoring significant event (P793) as it is for everybody clear what you mean with it. dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) on a building I would personally interpret as the time when the last people moved out of a building and the building started to be uninhabited. --Pasleim (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This argument is based on the assumption that a building only can cease to exist by demolition (Q331483). A building can also be destroyed by conflagration (Q168983), but a fire does not necessarily destroy a building. I believe that this property should be applied to buildings to specify at what date they ceased to exist regardless in what manner it was destroyed and service retirement (P730) should be used to specify when it stopped being used. /ℇsquilo 15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
A disused building is still a building. Destroyed buildings are basically no longer buildings, but ruins. Date of destruction for a building that's not subsequently repaired is the time of fire, or earthquake, not the time that the ruins were cleared up, and the cause of destruction is fire or earthquake, not demolition. Ghouston (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to "P576" page.