Property talk:P5831

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• String length
• Language of strings
• List of qualifiers
• Count

usage example
example of how a lexeme might be used (Do not use this property on a Sense, but instead a statement on the Lexeme itself)

Represents	example (Q14944328)
Data type	Monolingual text
Example	no label (L16097) → He was kindly 'Uncle Walt', the amiable old man all American children loved like a member of their own family. no label (L87) → Und all diese einzelnen Bögen zusammen bilden dann den Regenbogen. no label (L29646) → He puhelivat keskenään hiljaisella äänellä. no label (L13356) → Ten człowiek jest mieszkańcem Warszawy. no label (L3402) → Two automatic systems provide links for the content pages of Wiktionaries. no label (L7968) → 我~一本書。
See also	subject form (P5830), attested in (P5323), quotation (P1683), subject sense (P6072), Wikidata property example for properties (P2271), Wikidata property example for lexemes (P5192)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Database reports/Constraint violations/P5831 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 24,450 Main statement 24,433 >99.9% of uses Qualifier 13 <0.1% of uses Reference 4 <0.1% of uses

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Allowed entity types are Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771), Wikibase sense (Q54285715): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5831#Entity types, hourly updated report

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/P5831#Scope, SPARQL

Only for lexemes, or also for forms?

Should this property only be used for (the main statements of) lexemes? Can we use it for forms as well? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: This was already discussed during property proposal, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/usage_example In short it can be used on forms but it will be harder to write tools and queries if examples will be in two places. There will be sense qualifier too once senses become available. KaMan (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I see that examples should also go under senses. It is unclear to me from the discussion whether we should refrain from using forms altogether. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it is best to avoid them. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: It's 2 years later now and we have Senses. The constraint seems like it can be removed now for Senses? Here's my example: shoot up (L314213) --Thadguidry (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thadguidry: I now always put the usage example on the lexeme level and use the qualifiers to note which form and sense, see, e.g., fortsættelse (L314203). I think that is the most canonical way. It may be that I was not aware of the subject form (P5830), and subject sense (P6072) was created 3rd November 2018, — a month after I posed the question. I suggest we move your examples to the lexeme level and use the qualifiers. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to move one of the examples at shoot up (L314213) to the lexeme levels to show the way that I think it should be used. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: That way would make it less clear on both usage and programmatic access and querying. It is more clear to quickly query or see the kinds of senses (which are concise, translatable meanings) and then get further usage example of how that meaning is used. Your way flips this around and makes it harder not easier via programmatic access to quickly assess usage examples, it requires an indirection lookup, rather than a straight predicate entailment. The community did not refer to the Lexeme data model when they created and supported subject sense (P6072) which breaks the Lexeme data model and its documentation. For clarity, just read and look at the very bottom orange box of the SVG image on the Lexeme documentation page. Translations, synonyms, connotation, register, usage example, etc. are Statements on the Senses. I suggest that subject sense (P6072) be deprecated and folks follow the Lexeme data model to allow easier querying. Certainly the data model is only 1 way to model Lexicographical data, but no one mentioned why doing it the recommended way caused a problem and then decided to create subject sense (P6072). I agree with data model where it shows the grey Statements box to hold statements about the Lemma itself like derived-from, region, period, homonym, etc. And then statements about Senses, should go on each Sense, as shown in the SVG image. --Thadguidry (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thadguidry: adding usage examples at the sense level makes more, well, sense to me, at least in the mental model I currently have for how lexeme data is organized. I'm willing to entertain the hypothesis that it might be better to add them at the lexeme level rather than at the sense level, but I haven't seen arguments to justify that. Fnielsen says "that is the most canonical way", but I don't understand his reasoning for saying that. --Waldyrious (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey senses are above forms? I suppose lexeme level is more symmetrical way and without duplication. Infovarius (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Property to use to indicate origin of example

Which property should we use to indicate the origin of the text (if there is any). For instance, for gammel (L31494) I have exemplified it with "Så mødte han en gammel heks på landevejen" which is a quote from The Tinderbox (Q1167862). Currently, I have used stated in (P248), but is there a better one? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: Why do you need special property for it? There is reference section in every statement and lots of properties to be used in it. See Help:Sources. See for example how I use it in Rosja (L31207). KaMan (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@KaMan: What bothered me was the wording of stated in (P248) "stated in", - as if it was a fact. "quoted from" would be a more fitting wording. But I suppose that stated in (P248) is good enough as the property to use. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

'example translation' qualifier?

@Peter Bowman, Wostr, KaMan, ArthurPSmith, Lucas Werkmeister, Jura1: @Loominade, Mfilot: In my application, I'd like to show a translation of the usage example into the users language (if one is avalible). I'd like to propose a property used to show possible translations of the example. Do you guys have an opionon on that, or should I just go on and draft a proposal? – Shisma (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

right now there is only literal translation (P2441) -Shisma (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Usage in forms

I believe that it makes sense to use these in forms of some lexemes, such as suffixes that change from word to word. What's the current situation on that? Egezort (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)