Property talk:P61
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Nicoljaus in topic Contemporary constraint for archaeology
Documentation
discoverer or inventor
subject who discovered, first described, invented, or developed this discovery or invention or scientific hypothesis or theory
subject who discovered, first described, invented, or developed this discovery or invention or scientific hypothesis or theory
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Value type “human (Q5), facility (Q13226383), robotic spacecraft (Q1378139), astronomical survey (Q550089), exploration (Q6502154), organization (Q43229), group of humans (Q16334295), software (Q7397), fictional robot (Q18327510), fictional character (Q95074), group of fictional characters (Q14514600), measurement tool (Q1047213), fictional entity (Q14897293), invention (Q14208553), archaeological find (Q10855061)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value human (Q5), facility (Q13226383), robotic spacecraft (Q1378139), astronomical survey (Q550089), exploration (Q6502154), organization (Q43229), group of humans (Q16334295), software (Q7397), fictional robot (Q18327510), fictional character (Q95074), group of fictional characters (Q14514600), measurement tool (Q1047213), fictional entity (Q14897293), invention (Q14208553), archaeological find (Q10855061) (or a subclass thereof). (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/P61#Value type Q5, Q13226383, Q1378139, Q550089, Q6502154, Q43229, Q16334295, Q7397, Q18327510, Q95074, Q14514600, Q1047213, Q14897293, Q14208553, Q10855061, SPARQL
Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200), Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771): 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/P61#Entity types
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. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P61#Scope, SPARQL
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): human (Q5), Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), Wikimedia category (Q4167836)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (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/P61#Conflicts with P31, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why only for astronomical objects? / Pourquoi uniquement pour les objets astronomiques ? edit
- English: Why only in astronomy? (cf. Wikidata:List of properties)
- Français : Pourquoi devrait-on appliquer cette propriété uniquement aux objets astronomiques ? (cf. Wikidata:List of properties)
--Gloumouth1 (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- When this property was proposed, it was done in the astronomical section. Nevertheless you are right: this property can be used also for other types of items. If there is consensus, I'm agree that it became "general". In this case, of course, we will need to change all the descriptions. --Paperoastro (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly support for things like dinosaurs or archeological objects. And perhaps even for ideas and theories, like "Einstein discovered relativity theory", that may not be the best possible word, but that may me simpler than creating another property. --Zolo (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Move as general property. Snipre (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful if we generalize it completely, it shoud be renamed discoverer or inventor, in order to avoid:
- terminolgy discrepencies (e.g. in English, Lascaux was discovered, in French, it was invented)
- philosophically undecidable questions (e.g. were natural numbers discovered or invented?)
- I think that few generic properties should be preferred to many specialized properties, but I'm not an expert in ontologies, and I'm afraid that there is currently no clear guideline about this.
- --Gloumouth1 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful if we generalize it completely, it shoud be renamed discoverer or inventor, in order to avoid:
- Move as general property. Snipre (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly support for things like dinosaurs or archeological objects. And perhaps even for ideas and theories, like "Einstein discovered relativity theory", that may not be the best possible word, but that may me simpler than creating another property. --Zolo (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support generalization, but please be careful, as per Gloumouth1. --Ricordisamoa 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)- Support This property clearly applies well beyond astronomy. Emw (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support if the label is renamed discovered or inventor --Gloumouth1 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Since there is consensus, I moved this property to generic section and changed labels and descriptions in English and Italian languages following the suggestions of this discussion. --Paperoastro (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Same question / même question edit
- English: exactly the same question here: Property talk:P126 and Property talk:P136
- Français : exactement la même question ici: Property talk:P126 et Property talk:P136
Single value constraint edit
This does not make sense. A large part of all minor planet has a group of discoverer! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
What about things that were only invented but never discovered? edit
Vulcan (Q213636) was only hypothetical. But despite extensive effort, it was never discovered. Should I use a different property? --Shisma (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Use of P61 in Wikipedia in French edit
P61 is now used in the new Infobox Méthode scientifique, an Infobox dedicated to scientific methods such as statistical test (Q210832), economic model (Q2180497). You can find the list of all pages using this Infobox here Catégorie Article utilisant l'infobox Méthode scientifique.--PAC2 (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
French label edit
Following this request for comments, there is two solutions in order to have a gender neutral French label :
- "découvreur, découvreuse, inventeur ou inventrice"
- "découvert ou inventé par"
I prefer the second one. And you? PAC2 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Either "découvert(e) ou inventé(e) par, second choice the first proposition. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I choose your solution PAC2 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Contemporary constraint for archaeology edit
For example, the Romni-Borschevo culture (Q4397572) existed: the "start time" was the 8th century, the "end time" was the 10th century. It was discovered or invented by Mykola Makarenko in the 20th century. And so we have: "The entities Romni-Borschevo culture and Mykola Makarenko should be contemporary". Is it possible to somehow remove the constraint for items with the instance “archaeological culture”? Or some other ways? Nicoljaus (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think it creates lot of confusions and must be divided, as 2 different elements: one is 'discover' and the other 'invented'. If you see items like Rosetta Stone, it has a 'creator' and an 'inception' time, and then a 'discoverer or inventor' and a 'time of discovery or invention'. But 'invention' term is closer to creation than to discovery. Then, many other elements are using the wrong classification.
- Also, if you need to translate this concept into a sentence, it will be confusing for people to read it, as these are 2 different ideas. Pruna.ar (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I have no objection to your suggestions, but this is beyond my area of expertise.. The raised issue has been temporarily resolved this way: [1] Nicoljaus (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)