Property proposal:	Generic	Authority control	Person	Organization
	Creative work	Place	Sports	Sister projects
	Transportation	Natural science	Computing	Lexeme

General

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator

Under discussion

Description	indicates a relation between the subject and the SDGs or one of the components
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Allowed values	Items that are instance of (P31): Sustainable Development Goal (Q53580881), Sustainable Development Goal Target (Q56724848), or Sustainable Development Goal Indicator (Q56726345). And also Sustainable Development Goals (Q7649586) itself.
Example 1	biodiversity (Q47041)→Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Q53581245)
Example 2	adaptation to global warming (Q260607)→Target 13.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590883)
Example 3	Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Q22907841)→Indicator 13.1.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595592)
Example 4	early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258)→Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404)
Planned use	Add on phenomena, processes and policies.
Wikidata project	WikiProject Sustainable Development (Q56507949)

Motivation

A property like this will make it much easier to connect Wikidata items to the Sustainable Development Goals (Q7649586) and enable a straightforward and queryable data model. Ainali (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Sustainable Development. Ainali (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support We need better mechanisms to tag relationships of Wikidata entities to such measures of sustainable development, and the proposed approach looks good to me. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally, is a label that's longer than the property description a bad indication.

Properties exist to specify how two entities are related. This property just says that they are somehow related which is very imprecise. If we take early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258) and Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404), I would call that relationship something like "is measured by" (and maybe we can find an even better name). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a long label, and was contemplating inf the "relates to the SDGs" would have been a good enough one, but thought that it might not have shown the intended use clearly enough. But perhaps that should be switched, I am very open to that.

Regarding specifying the relation, generally I would agree with you. But in this collection, and for all different kinds of items and how they could be connected with the goals, targets or indicators, it would be too complex to create an overview in a query to find out what is having a relation to, for example, a specific indicator. Yes, it is a generic relation, but as the relations are to a well-defined and particularly notable subset of items of high general interest, I think it is called for. Ainali (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to know what has relationships to a specific indicator, I could just look at that page and use the reverse label. I would expect that there are also other ways you can write your query.

As far as this being a particularly notable subset of items, to me that means that it's even more important to be specific about how they relate to other items. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The SDGs are unscientific, flawed, and self-defeating / self-contradicting. The main reason for why this shouldn't be included however is that nearly everything has some kind of relation to them (colloquially speaking). Instead of using very flawed overly broad subjective inspecific goals some alternative(s) could be used and these may already exist such as climate change mitigation (Q898653), methane emissions mitigation (Q124806283) or pollution prevention (Q7225750) which are in need of complements and expansion. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LevandeMänniska (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be useful for eg many governmental projects explicitly targeting sustainability goals. -- Arvelius (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be "useful"? Also I don't see why it wouldn't be better to just use clearer alternatives. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing against the SDGs? This property proposal is not about their usefulness, but how we can describe what is happening in the world, and in that sense it is useful. Whether you like them or not, it is undeniable a framework that is used by the United Nations and a majority of the member states when developing policy. Besides the examples above we have items like Sustainable Development Goal 12 in the European Union (Q122222559), Sustainable Development Goals and Australia (Q104856926), Sustainable Development Investment Partnership (Q25215461), Q110547062 etc. Even for a critic, it would be useful to be able to see how things connect according to this framework, especially since it won't exclude other properties to be developed if you have suggestions on other frameworks to document. One could say that religion or worldview (P140) or official religion (P3075) are not useful nor scientific, but as Wikidata editors, we should describe that those are used in the world, whatever we ourselves think about them. Ainali (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that is only one of two objections I have against including these, please see above for some links about why I object to them, e.g. because they're themselves against sustainability, and the other reason. Countries don't actually use this framework when making policy, and there have been studies about whether they do. Again, nearly everything has a relation to them in some way. Instead, of linking this at nearly every page and advocating for SDGs on Wikidata, with btw no usefulness beyond that, people should invest their time in expanding and integrating specific goals such as "Methane emissions reduction". Official religion for example is scientific as that can be objectively evaluated, in many cases countries have that even codified somehow. Yes, we should describe things of the real world which is why there is a wikidata item and Wikipedia article(s) for the SDGs, they don't need to be linked at every economy or environment-related page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose less if this was used only sparingly for items as related to each as early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258) to Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404). And, again, more specific goals and problems are not yet well featured in WD so it would be better if people did that first or at least alongside this instead of mostly only having SDG items and properties. SDGs are not good or well suited as the only framework for considering global issues / problems in terms of measuring, formalizing and addressing them. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainali:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Prototyperspective:. @Prototyperspective, ChristianKl: any changes in your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony Sure. The request for other goals is a bit of whataboutism in my opinion. We can of course have several properties for different frameworks in Wikidata, but the lack of interest in other frameworks is not relevant to this proposal. Regarding the framework not being used is an unsupported claim. It is clear that the EU member states, for example, report about their progress and that it is aggregated upwards so there must be hundreds if not thousands of civil servants dedicated just to the reporting. Ainali (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it makes sense...I only very weakly oppose it at this point (mainly due to concerns of how the property would be used) but think the item should only be used for items directly matching the SDG goal as the one in the example not also to items somewhat related/relevant to them. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that it's better to specify the nature of a how the two relate in a property and not only that the object of the property has something to do with sustainable development goals. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AmandaSLawrence (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Would be useful for grouping SDG related entities and reuse of wikidata in SDG projects[reply]

agent of action

Under discussion

Description	thing that does the action
Data type	Item
Domain	action (Q4026292)
Example 1	German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)agent of actionArmy Group B (Q157572) Source
Example 2	Opening of Tokyo 2020 games (Q116504974)agent of actionNaruhito (Q217096) Source
Example 3	Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)agent of actionJohann Philipp Reis (Q77124) Source
See also	https://schema.org/agent

Motivation

I would like to create a data model to describe notable actions agents have made that are described in various Wikimedia articles. We should allow users to document actions so that they can be used to create timelines of events that can then be easily translated. They can also be used as a source to generate detailed Wikipedia article content for Abstract Wikipedia.

This property is the first to be proposed of the data model and follows the Schema.org data model for actions: https://schema.org/Action

participant (P710) exists, however that's usually used usually for events and not actions. It also requires that you use object has role (P3831) to specify the role of the participant. For a relationship as critical and common as an agent is to the action they perform, we should have a dedicated property and not be required to add object has role (P3831)agent (Q24229398) to every single agent statement. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work? telephone call (Q2296401)agent of actioncaller (Q113293705). Also, an alias (or better label) could be "done by", more usable than practiced by (P3095) for non-professions. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was considering using telephone call (Q2296401) as an example! However, I think the what that item is describing is the act of talking to someone over a telephone. Not the act of calling someone on a telephone. The agent of a telephone call (Q2296401) is just a normal human then.

Good catch with the similarities to practiced by (P3095)! I almost thought for a second that we could maybe just broaden the scope and rename practiced by (P3095) to "done by" but then I realized that the domain of practiced by (P3095) includes "fields" which are not really actions. I think it's important to distinguish that this is meant for actions by maintaining "action" in the label. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See my concerns with the related property proposal “object of action”. The examples given here make is appear as if those concerns mightn’t apply here, but already users are considering more general use of this proposed property like telephone call (Q2296401)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)caller (Q113293705) (see above), which would be subject to those same concerns. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The examples can be converted to use participant (P710), and we have officially opened by (P542) too. Midleading (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use those properties for classes, though. Not sure why the only examples are for instance values, class values look much more valuable here to me. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this property should be updated with class examples. But the problem with telephone call (Q2296401) is why the value is not Q5. We also have countless dailiy activities that every person can do. Perhaps the label should be "action performed by role" for telephone call (Q2296401). The significant overlap with practiced by (P3095) and participant (P710) is noted, and they have already used like this (crime (Q83267)→criminal (Q2159907), competition (Q841654)→contestant (Q5165152)) Midleading (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this intended to contrast with/be complemented by a (potential future) property patient of action (Pyyy)? For example:
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)Johann Philipp Reis (Q77124)
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)patient of action (Pyyy)Physikalischer Verein (Q2089433)
(The ‘agent’ property would indicate who performs the action, the ‘patient’ property, to whom it happens.)―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "patient of action" "object of action"? Lectrician1 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intuitively I’d have (in the telephone example) associated the telephone with ‘object’, but yes, ‘patient’ and ‘object’ are probably hard to keep apart in any consistent way. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wd-Ryan, Midleading: Regarding the telephone-call example, note the close similarity with the dog-walking example in the proposal for a property “frame element” that attempts to capture actions from a frame-semantics angle. One might want to look into whether the frame-semantics approach is better-suited to statements over classes and the the approach proposed here, to statements over instances. At any rate, I think one and the same property should not be used for both class statements and instance statements. (A property like this here one but for class statements should have the distinctive interpretation of something like “instances have agents of type”.) Insofar I support the current choice of examples for this property proposal. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support we need a generalized property to describe this kind of relationship, for example I suppose conjugation of gametes (Q11742512)→gamete (Q211050) and fertilization (Q14890574)→egg cell (Q1321695),sperm (Q17145). --Mzaki (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question How about broadening the use of perpetrator (P8031) instead, removing the (un)ethical assessment? One man's terrorist... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis Not a bad idea... I like it. @Arbnos @Wd-Ryan @Mzaki @BlaueBlüte @Midleading what do you think? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support this, I've been unable to add a group that performed an event without the implication that it was "immoral". It could be renamed to "done by". -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having given this only a moderate amount of thought I’d say no (to broadening perpetrator (P8031)), because the domain of perpetrator (P8031) includes (instances of) classes that are not subclasses of action (Q4026292) as proposed here, but for example of occurrence (Q1190554). And instances of occurrence (Q1190554) can have multiple agents, only some of which might be considered perpetrator (P8031) (say, versus ‘victim’), a distinction that users of perpetrator (P8031) probably rely on.
But perpetrator (P8031) could perhaps be made a subproperty of this new property ‘agent of action’ (Pxxx) (although similar reservations might apply). ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an important property for the completeness of Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a more general method of indicating the participants of actions (including agents) proposed at Wikidata:WikiProject Events and Role Frames. Mahir256 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Mahir256:. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 06:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256 @ZI Jony @Anatole Gershman using object has role (P3831) as a qualifier for practiced by (P3095) on action items seems silly. I still concur with my original reasoning that

For a relationship as critical and common as an agent is to the action they perform, we should have a dedicated property and not be required to add object has role (P3831)agent (Q24229398) to every single agent statement.
Lectrician1 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? @Midleading, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Mzaki, BlaueBlüte, Lectrician1, Wd-Ryan: pining for attention. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exception to constraint (lexeme)

On hold

Description	lexeme that is an exception to the constraint, qualifier to define a property constraint in combination with P2302
Data type	Lexeme
Domain	property
Example 1	Breton Favereau dictionary lexeme ID (P11068)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except korrandon (L628622)
Example 2	Breton Favereau dictionary lexeme ID (P11068)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except kaoc'h (L627729)
Example 3	DWDS lemma ID (P9940)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except Cyberstrategie (L905505)
Example 4	DWDS lemma ID (P9940)distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) except Bändel (L815181) and Bendel (L815180)
Example 5	Nynorskordboka-ID (P10041)distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) except daglegstove (L1141770) and daglegstue (L1141771)
See also	exception to constraint (P2303)

Motivation

For constraints, we need the equivalent of exception to constraint (P2303), but for lexemes. In particular, it is necessary for identifier properties used on lexemes (usually linking to dictionaries which often have a few weird exceptions like natural languages often have).

Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support - of course, since "element type" properties cannot be used on lexemes, this would be necessary --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ―Eihel (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I'm only leaving out the vote because that will make it easier for me to create the property. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support AdamSeattle (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --So9q (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep in mind that, until the necessary software changes (in WikibaseQualityConstraints and/or KrBot) have been made, this property will have no effect except to confuse users why it isn’t working. There should at the very least be an associated Phabricator task, and IMHO the property should only be created once the Wikidata team has committed to implementing the support in WBQC soon. I’d like to avoid a repeat of Wikidata:Property proposal/applies if regular expression matches. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): I figured that pretty much, thanks for the reminder and yes, indeed, we should absolutely Wait to hear from the dev team. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Useful for some Lexemes. Solaris5296 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

date de vote

Under discussion

Description	vote date, date on which people decided or casted their ballot
Represents	legal act (Q1864008)
Data type	Point in time
Template parameter	"date votation" in fr:modèle:Infobox Initiative suisse
Example 1	French constitutional referendum, 1958 (Q2319128)→28 septembre 1958
Example 2	Federal popular initiative "for the protection against gun violence" (Q663241)→13 février 2011
Example 3	1932 German presidential election (Q706684)→13 mars 1932 + 10 avril 1932
Example 4	Veil Act (Q3258255)→20 décembre 1974
Single-value constraint	yes but there can be exceptions (two-round system (Q615255))
Wikidata project	WikiProject Law (Q8486941) WikiProject Human Rights (Q115677469)

Motivation

To help distinguish votes/votations/referendums/laws between announcement date (P6949) effective date (P7588) and date of promulgation (P7589) and publication date (P577)Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 05:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Given that there are going to be a lot of expections I don't think a single value constraint is a good idea. Many modern elections allow people to cast their ballets before polls open via mail-in voting. The current description would suggest that all dates where mail-in voting was acting would be a "date de vote". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bouzinac:, could you please clarify the comments above by @ChristianKl:. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's difficult to model since you have plenty of ways to voting. There are countries where double voting is common (first round and second round), where you can cast ballot in different ways (voting proxy, mail, etc). There would be three way to solving this:
either set a "date of vote/last day of possible vote" and having a single-value-constraint. It would mean the last day where a ballot can be casted/counted is the one to record.

or set a "date of vote(s)" and having a single-value-suggestion. Letting people set the context with qualifyers.

or decide to rephrase the property as to the main date (the most common significative date : that is the date where most of ballots are to be decisive/counted) + single value constraint
I don't have any preference. Thoughts? Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 19:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

See also

Contents

General

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator

Motivation

Discussion

agent of action

Motivation

Discussion

exception to constraint (lexeme)

Motivation

Discussion

date de vote

Motivation

Discussion