Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic


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

See alsoEdit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.

  On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2020/01.

Contents

GeneralEdit

associated electoral districtEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionconstituencies or electoral districts in which a place is located or is part of. If a municipality or county is split into or part of several districts: add several values
Representsconstituency (Q192611)
Data typeItem
Domainlocation (Q17334923), municipalities or county depending on the country. If attribution can be done on county level, don't repeat it on state or province level. If it's the same for the entire state and all states have similar corresponding electoral district, don't repeat on county/district/municipality level. Use only for countries where there is a consensus to use it (initially: India, Canada)
Allowed valueselectoral districts of the same country (not Q3025246). Don't use for countries where the value is always the same as in located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)
Example 1Sarbari (Q60292834)Bankura Lok Sabha constituency (Q4856799)
Example 2Sarbari (Q60292834)Raghunathpur Vidhan Sabha constituency (Q7283039)
Example 3Raghunathpur (Q3929423)Raghunathpur Vidhan Sabha constituency (Q7283039)
Example 4Dollard-des-Ormeaux (Q141998)Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Example 5L'Île-Bizard–Sainte-Geneviève (Q617452)Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Example 6Pierrefonds-Roxboro (Q1896248)Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Example 7Pierrefonds-Roxboro (Q1896248)Lac-Saint-Louis (Q3214654)
Example 8Montreal (Q340)Lac-Saint-Louis (Q3214654), Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Planned useIndia, Canada
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also

MotivationEdit

This property will describe a place which is located in a certain constituency or electoral district. Bodhisattwa (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sample electoral districts. --- Jura 10:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the samples as they are not for planned countries. --- Jura 07:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • A prior property proposal is at Wikidata:Property proposal/District. @Mdmahir: as proposer, @Jura1: as supporter of that proposal, and @Pigsonthewing, ChristianKl, Pasleim, ArthurPSmith, Yair rand: as opponents of that proposal. Mahir256 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The relationship between administrative divisions and electoral divisions has been neglected for some time, and most certainly deserves some way of being modeled here on Wikidata. I do think that rather than completely supporting or completely opposing this proposal, changes to this proposal such that the result can handle different political situations will be necessary. To those of you I named above who opposed it, for example, help us handle the situation of countries in which gerrymandering prevails (like in Five Eyes countries). To those of you who support this proposal as written, for example, help us handle the situation of countries in which constituency delimitations follow existing administrative boundaries somewhat well (like in India and Bangladesh). Mahir256 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Intuitively, I would prefer a property that's more general and can be also used for census districts as well as electoral districts.

ChristianKl Oravrattas Tagishsimon Jacksonj04 Owenpatel Markcridge Louisecrow Nomen ad hoc Tubezlob Siwhitehouse Mhl20 Alexsdutton Danadl Teester Zache a_ka_es Hasive Nat965 masti Papuass Jklamo ProtoplasmaKid Jmmuguerza Graemebp Pete Forsyth Jelabra Rfitzel Davidpar Canley Bodhisattwa CYAN Masssly MJL tdombos salgo60 Daniel Mietchen Lefcentreright Pedropaulovc

  Notified participants of WikiProject every politician ChristianKl❫ 08:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Good idea, located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) is not appropriate place for constituencies.--Jklamo (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes. depending on electoral law per country it can or cannot have the same boundaries as administrative regions Masti (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (as currently written, though I'm supportive of the larger idea). Allocating every city, town, village etc to specific electoral districts (as well as to an administrative district) doesn't seem either sensible, or particularly useful. The example given above, of Sarbari (Q60292834) being in both Bankura Lok Sabha constituency (Q4856799) and Raghunathpur Vidhan Sabha constituency (Q7283039) doesn't seem like the best way of being able to say that. I agree that we definitely need a good way of relating electoral districts and administrative districts, but this doesn't seem to be it.
    • More generally, there are four scenarios that we generally need to cover here, for each type of electoral district (and, of course, most places are in multiple different electoral districts simultaneously as they elect people to multiple different bodies: e.g. a city council, county council, state legislature, national legislature, and supranational legislature (some which which can separate constituencies for lower houses vs upper houses). These certainly can neatly nest within each other in some places, but my experience is that that's the exception, rather than the norm.)
      1. Where electoral districts have a one-to-one match to administrative districts (e.g. the US, or Australia, where the constituencies of the Senate are the States).
      2. Where electoral districts neatly contain one or more administrative districts, e.g. in Finland the constituencies of the Eduskunta mostly match the regions of Finland, other than a couple that combine multiple, e.g. South-Eastern Finland (Q18691231) which is made up of South Karelia (Q5691), Southern Savonia (Q5693), and Kymenlaakso (Q5698)
      3. Where an administrative areas neatly contain multiple electoral districts: e.g. each Canadian state contains one, or more than one, Senate division. However, it also often useful to break things down to a higher level of precision, e.g. to say that each the city of Bristol (Q23154) is represented in the UK Parliament by Bristol West (Q1072698), Bristol East (Q1070148), Bristol South (Q578636), and Bristol North West (Q3137955)
      4. Where there is essentially no mapping from an electoral district to an administrative district, other than it being within something at a larger scale (e.g. some of the common examples of heavily gerrymandered districts, or places with complex borders, such as Baarle-Nassau (Q9811), Baarle-Hertog (Q244959), where some of the electoral difficulties are described at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8027086.stm)
    • A key issue is also that, even when dealing only a single "type" of constituency (and quite a few legislatures explicitly have multiple types) it is not always possible to map all the electoral districts in a given jurisdiction using only one of these methods. This can then make it very difficult to know how to formulate queries to get useful/relevant information back out again, even where you have good knowledge of the underlying structure of that jurisdiction+elected body, and close to impossible if you don't. --Oravrattas (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this some more, I believe the best way to model this is to provide electoral district maps (i.e. in Commons I guess) for each district, and then you can in principle retrieve relevant districts for any location via those maps. But that doesn't make retrieval of relevant districts for a location easy from the query angle, so it would be helpful to have a secondary (derived) relation that represents the relationship of locations to districts. However, "in" is the wrong word for this, because there are far too many cases (even in the US) where one type of location is not wholly contained within the other type in either direction. So I think a looser secondary "related district" or "overlaps with geographic object" or something like that would be the right sort of property for this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: See territory overlaps (P3179). I don't like the increasing number of "located in area of type X" properties. Plenty of countries have many types of regional divisions, some of which aren't administrative territorial entities. Should there be a property for every type? Something else to consider: Is Mexico (Q96) located in the constituency Second constituency for French residents overseas (Q3025246)? --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Ok,   Oppose this one - use territory overlaps (P3179)! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Not only for France. Legally, every place outside Poland is in Warsaw (Q270)'s district, so it had to be added to every place and every ship (with a Polish citizen onboard). Panek (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Whilst I agree that "located in the administrative territorial entity" is not the ideal property to use to explain the hierarchy of electoral districts, as this stands it seems far too prone to confusing usage. I think @ArthurPSmith: pretty much sums up my concerns, and that the correct solution is to both add spatial data to the Commons (for those who know how to query it, and this is good practice anyway for anything with a boundary) and to be able to say "related to district" for expressing more concrete terms such as "this district is explicitly defined as being a part of this district" and vice-versa. --jacksonj04 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't really see another working solution. P131 might seem to be working for countries where they more or less fit between existing administrative layers, but even there it tends to lead to the mistaken assumption that electoral districts actually are administrative layers. --- Jura 10:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To prone to gerrymandering (Q476310), i.e. changes very often. In many countires too often to be udated at time. Panek (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Panek: does the update address your concerns (which I share)? --- Jura 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Exists as an infobox field in eg en:Template:infobox UK place -- see eg Falkirk which gives Scottish, UK, and European constituencies that the town is in. Where an area (eg Bristol) is included in multiple constituencies, simply record multiple values. There is no requirement that the constituencies only include the given item -- eg there may be many villages all located within a particular rural constituency. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bodhisattwa, Jklamo, Masti, Jheald: I was thinking about adding Canadian federal electoral district of Canada (Q17202187) to municipalities and counties. The nice thing about these is that they seem fairly stable (checked every 10 years so) and sane (in terms of gerrymandering), so probably worthwhile to include.
Still, while some counties or municipalities are clearly located in one electoral district, others include parts of several electoral districts. For these, I think it would be worth to include all applicable ones (similar to the use of "territory overlaps").
Accordingly, I'd use "associated constituency"(1), "associated electoral district"(2) or similar(3) as label for this property. As you supported the initial proposal, would you be ok with the new label (2)?
In regards to electoral districts outside the territory of a country (Q3025246), I wouldn't add them with this property.
@Panek, Mahir256: For countries with too much gerrymandering, I suppose contributors would probably not find it useful or worthwhile. --- Jura 08:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I updated the proposal based on my comment above. --- Jura 07:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

arcade system motherboardEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionArcade system hardware board the system motherboard used by a hardware device
Representscomputer hardware (Q3966)
Data typeItem
Template parameter|placa base= and |sistema arcade= in Ficha de hardware and Ficha de videojuego
Domainproperty
Example 1Tempest (Q1340846) Atari Vector (Q63109245)
Example 2Killer Instinct (Q973459) Killer Instinct arcade motherboard (Q63109134)
Example 3F-Zero GX (Q1940315) Triforce (Q1324477)
Example 4Open Desktop Workstation (Q838593) Pegasos (Q2067286)
Planned useAlmost inmediately, to be used in (Arcade) videogames infobox

MotivationEdit

I want to create this as a series of properties to be used in Videogames infoboxes. This would be an alias for "Motherboard" instead. Namely, this is intended for the motherboard codename, specially in arcade machines, wich several ones uses the same motherboard. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Mohammed Adam (T) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Cwf97 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Esteban16 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Peterchanws Brasig Le Yota de Mars YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Coloradohusky CptViraj BugWarp ʂɤɲ   Notified participants of WikiProject Video games --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment Can you fix the examples? NMaia (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added the proposed value. Is this a right value for items already existing in Wikidata (ej. the motherboard used in an arcade system)?
If I understand correctly, you would like to express Star Wars (Q54317) Atari Star Wars Vector (Q17462637)?
If so, I have been wondering − shouldn’t we just use Star Wars (Q54317) platform (P400) Atari Star Wars Vector (Q17462637)? This is already used in the wild:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?platform ?platformLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q7889.       # All video games...
  ?item wdt:P400 ?platform.     # ...whose platform...
  ?platform wdt:P31 wd:Q631229. # is an arcade system board.
}

Try it!

Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Agree that platform (P400) could be used instead. Thadguidry (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • platform (P400) refers to the platform in general (Arcade, Nintendo 64, etc, wich is used already), while "Arcade system" refers to the details of the hardware (generic or codename of the motherboard). arcade system board (Q631229) is a statement, not a property, what we need for the infobox. "Hardware" could be also a name for this property. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well, at some level we get to decide what platform (P400) means :). You could argue the same way for console and PC games, that we should do something like:

Metal Gear Solid (Q6582527) platform (P400) video game console (Q8076)
Metal Gear Solid (Q6582527) <Hardware> PlayStation (Q10677) or
Star Wars: The Old Republic (Q737308) platform (P400) personal computer (Q16338)
Star Wars: The Old Republic (Q737308) operating system (P306) Microsoft Windows (Q1406)

  • The layout of the downstream infobox which will use the data is somewhat irrelevant: as far as I know, there is no need for 1-1 mapping between infobox fields and Wikidata statements − I think the infobox could be coded either way in the Lua.
    (Not entirely sure what you mean by « arcade system board (Q631229) is a statement, not a property » − based on the definitions used here, it’s neither ;-))
    Jean-Fred (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the example ; however one question: we can’t model free-text like « Proprietary MIPS based hardware system ». In this case, would it make sense to create an item for that particular hardware? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, as no way to create free text, I'll take care to create new elements for missing ones, as you mentioned (see the examples above, I fixed them). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics

Before claiming «then it does not have a “hardware” per se − after all», please keep in mind those games has been launched as Arcade machine first, and a browser is just an emulator for the hardware (arcade) the machine ran, so, this property is relevant for videogames first launched as arcade. See the examples I given, specially the Killer Instinct, having its own dedicated hardware, as most of the arcades. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we misunderstandood each other here. I don’t disagree that arcade games have specific hardware. What I mean is that the Q7889-items are about games as creative works: Killer Instinct (Q973459) is about both the arcade and the SNES versions − so the statements on that item should (mostly) be applicable to both (although we can use qualifiers to clarify that). For me it would be like using number of pages (P1104) on Les Misérables (Q180736) - sure, there was a first edition of Les Misérables which had a given number of pages, but that does not apply to all reeditions of the text.
I see that the new proposal is about “the system motherboard used by a hardware device” − that sounds good, but right now video games are defined as not being hardware.
My take-away is that arcade games/machines/cabinets are clearly very complex objects (both culturally and technically). I would like us to come up with a comprehensive modeling concept, because I really think that stuffing more data on Q7889 items is breaking left and right and won’t fly much longer (and not only for arcade) (I started writing some thoughts about that). For example, next, we might decide we need a property to model that cabinets are upright or cocktail (a valid data point to record, and an actual field in some Wikipedia infoboxes) − yet I understand that some games (like Space Invaders) were published on both cabinet types.
For example, maybe we need to create items about the machines themselves then (the 'package' cabinet+motherboard+display+audio system) − or maybe not if go down the road of splitting items per platform-realisation (or some yet other solution).
Jean-Fred (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

WMF short URLEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionslug of a short URL for a web page, from the official Wikimedia URL Shortener
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpages on WMF projects
Allowed values[3-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z$][2-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z$]*
Example 1Wikidata (Q2013)d
Example 2Wikipedia (Q52)w
Example 3Wikisource (Q263)s
Example 4Arabic Wikipedia (Q199700)HU
Example 5French Wikisource (Q15156541)Yj
Formatter URLhttps://w.wiki/$1
See alsoWikidata:URLShortener

MotivationEdit

The official WMF URL shortener is due to launch on 11 April. The format of the URL is w.wiki/ followed by a string of letters and numbers. The examples shown above have been pre-populated, but longer URL slugs will be generated once the system is available to all editors.

Would this be better as an external-ID type property, with a formatter URL of https://w.wiki/$1? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: consensus seems to be tending towards an external-id datatype; I've modified the proposal accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support as an external ID so long as there is only one possible short URL domain (w.wiki) that the WMF provides. Mahir256 (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mehman 97 16:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ~ Nahid Talk 16:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support preferably as external ID; do you have a reference on what characters are allowed in the URL's (i.e. no upper-case letters, no '-', _', etc?) ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, the '$' ID listed on the documentation page already breaks this regex. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    That appears to be a one-off, so I'd add a constraint-exception. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • How many items for distinct single pages on WMF projects do we have? I feel like this property would only have about 15 uses total... --Yair rand (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as external-id NMaia (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as external-id. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support though it seems only stewards will manage the URL themselves.AldNonUcallinme? 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not so, any editor in good standing (i.e. not blocked on meta) may create a short URL using this service; only stewards may delete them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Wait Will this be used as a qualifier for links to wikimedia sites? It seems the current proposal doesn't address whether or not that's intended. ChristianKl❫ 07:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support external identifier John Samuel (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to echo the concern of Yair Rand: I don't see enough usage beside few designated shortcuts: rest are randomly created. — regards, Revi 04:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    • You don't see "enough usage" because the service is not yet live. As my proposal says, it is due to launch on 11 April. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should be storing all the short links for all the wikidata articles, all the wikipedia articles, and then we only have a limited small set of link. That qualifies for "not enough usage", IMO. (In case someone has uncertainty in my comment, interpret my message as firm no.) — regards, Revi 14:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Where has anyone proposed "storing all the short links for all the wikidata articles [and] , all the wikipedia articles"? Regardless, it has already been established that there will be more then sufficient short URLs ("1000 or more"), relevant to storage in Wikidata, to justify a new property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment seems unclear how this should be used. In general, I think redirecting urls should be avoided. If this property just repeats the interwiki link table (Special:Interwiki), that table might be worth being stored directly. --- Jura 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • "In general, I think redirecting urls should be avoided." The Wikidata community; the wider Wikimedia commmunity, and the WMF all seem to disagree with you. To reiterate: The official WMF URL shortener is due to launch on 11 April. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Comment @Pigsonthewing: I support the short URL extension and think it will be useful, but I'm not as sure about the proposed property. As written, the property is to be used on the Wikidata items for the projects/sites which the URLs redirect to, rather than the Wikidata items which describe the same entities as the pages which the URLs redirect to (and I suspect it might end up getting incorrectly used for the latter, including people pointlessly generating short URLs for Wikidata items and then circularly adding those short URLs to the Wikidata items). Almost none of the possible IDs will ever have their own items (e.g. "Alan Turing's English Wikipedia article" probably doesn't need an item), and because the targets are limited to pages within the Wikimedia projects, only notable parts of the Wikimedia movement (e.g. Women in Red) would ever get IDs in the first place. Furthermore, the use of a property for this is sort of pointless given that WMF owns and operates the actual database. It doesn't actually seem to have much utility, other than to advertise that the URL shortener exists. (By the way, P6085 (P6085) – the only existing property for short URLs – is still nominated for deletion for related reasons.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've struck out the oppose, since a majority of the current short URLs are now redirects to current or possible project home pages. Jc86035 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with those who think this might be confusing, though I'm not withdrawing my "support" vote above as it still seems a useful thing to record within Wikidata. I would note that per Yair rand's question which Andy failed to answer in a reasonable manner, there is a wikidata entry for every language wikipedia (for example Albanian Wikipedia (Q208533)) so that, with the wiktionaries, wikisources, etc. probably adds up to 1000 or more. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Alert readers will note that I had already addressed that point in my answer of 10:05, 4 April 2019; in the light of which, my subsequent answer was perfectly reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: I don't understand your comment about waiting. Can you clarify? As I noted just above, the main purpose I see for this property would be to add this property as a statement, for example Albanian Wikipedia (Q208533) with value whatever the shortener ID for "https://hy.wikipedia.org/" is. This seems particularly useful as the shortener works in one direction (from the shortened ID to the wikimedia page) but there's no obvious reverse, so Wikidata could provide that at least for these main pages.
  • @Yair rand: You didn't state an opinion for or against here, do you have anything further to comment, given that this should be applicable to 1000+ wikidata items? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: Wikidata contains plenty of links to Wikimedia websites. It's possible to add a WMF short URL link whenever there is such a link as a qualifier. This discussion till now has had no position on whether adding the property as a qualifier should be allowed. ChristianKl❫ 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm going to abstain on the main proposal (I'm unsure about the value of listing shortened URLs in general), but I   Oppose using this instead of or in addition to normal links in qualifiers/references. --Yair rand (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose WMF already decided to store this elsewhere, similarly to their other short-url scheme. As stated before, Wikidata doesn't generally store url shorter addresses. Besides, there don't seem to be enough uses for these, unless someone makes them for every item (I doubt that is desirable). --- Jura 06:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • "WMF already decided to store this elsewhere" is, of course, irrelevant to Wikidata - which in any case already has properties for other data which the WMF stores elsewhere. That the quantity of values relevant to our items will be in at least four figures has already been established. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: Pardon, but is your "WMF already decided...irrelevant to Wikidata" meaning that, in one day future, Wikidata should be splitted from WMF (not only we should have separated server clusters, but also build Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, Code of Conduct... ourselves)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: I've used a shell script to create most of the possible homepage redirects (1,594, although this includes 653 Incubator, Beta Wikiversity and Multilingual Wikisource projects, other currently non-functioning redirects and various other subdomains). I've put them in a Commons data page so that they can be imported if the property is created. Jc86035 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some possible issues:
    • Which URLs are to be treated as "canonical" (e.g. https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/ vs. http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/ vs. https://yue.wikipedia.org/ vs. https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org vs. https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/頭版)? Each of these would be given different redirects by the current version of the software, and at least four variations (5k, 5m, K6 and K7) already exist.
    • How will each URL's target be indicated, if that is done? This would be helpful for more easily filtering incorrect or inappropriate values.
    • What would start time (P580) indicate as a qualifier? Would it indicate the time that the target became valid, the time that the redirect was created, or either?
    Jc86035 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not see the benefit of adding a dedicated property for a URL shortener - shortened URLs are URLs themselves, so why cannot we use our existing URL properties for them? It is not clear to me why URL (P2699) and its sub-properties are not sufficient. I do not think it is useful to indicate a shortened URL in addition to a longer one: by design, they are equivalent and one can easily convert one into the other, so storing both would not be very useful. Also, shortened URLs are not necessarily unique as explained by Jc86035 above - they are not designed to be used as identifiers at all. So, I very much welcome the introduction of the Wikimedia URL shortener, but I do not think this property would be useful. I also note that Pigsonthewing has been very insistently asking admins to create this property and I do not think this is appropriate. @Pigsonthewing: if you are not satisfied with the property creation delays, feel free to give a hand yourself by creating other property proposals marked as ready (there are 47 of them at the moment, so you have plenty of choice). − Pintoch (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Pintoch. We already have properties for URLs, I do not see the benefit of adding a dedicated property for a URL shortener, although the URL shortener itself is a great tool.--Jklamo (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: "shortened URLs are URLs themselves, so why cannot we use our existing URL properties for them?" for the same reason we do not use them for official blog (P1581), archive URL (P1065), or interwiki prefix at Wikimedia (P6720), or any of our identifier properties with a formatter URL. We have ample precedence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Each of the properties you mention have a specific reason to be different from URL (P2699), yes. But invoking that "precedence" does not actually give a reason for this particular property to be separate - could you come up with an argument that is actually related to the proposal? − Pintoch (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as external-id.--Vulphere 12:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Non of the oppose reasons are acceptable for me, there has even no BLP concerns, so why not? @Pintoch:? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I am not sure what you mean? Are we talking about the same proposal? Yes this is not about human beings, so BLP concerns are indeed completely out of scope here. By the way, there is no Bonnie and Clyde problem either. Also, sitelinks for redirects should not conflict with this property. We can list many "problems" like these that are off-topic and therefore not a concern for this proposal. I have given my reasons for oppose above, which one do you want me to elaborate on, if any? − Pintoch (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Pintoch. Multichill (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

supported metadataEdit

MotivaciónEdit

Organize Wikipedia infoboxes data. --Tinker Bell 05:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Can you add some more examples from different domains, or otherwise clarify the intended scope here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Wait From reading the description it's not clear to me what the property does. Is it about metadata stored in the item or metadata stored by the subject that's represented by the item? ChristianKl❫ 13:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • ChristianKl, it is about metadata stored by the subject that's represented by the item. --Tinker Bell 23:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Telling me what the property is about, does nothing to answer my concern besides suggesting that the current description is unfit. The description of it should be clear enough to be understood by people (and be able to be translated). ChristianKl❫ 07:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

expansionEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionExpansions or DLC for software, mainly videogames
Representsexpansion pack (Q209163)
Data typeItem
Template parameter|Expansión= or |DLC= in Ficha de videojuego infobox
Domainvideogames
Example 1Mario Kart 8 (Q13427106) "DLC 1"
Example 2Giana Sisters: Twisted Dreams (Q3762768) "Rise of the Owlverlord"
Example 3Sonic Mania (Q25991770) Sonic Mania Plus (Q50654688)
Planned useInmediately, for the given infobox
See alsomod of (P7075)

MotivaciónEdit

Part of my infobox improvements. This property is intended for expansion packs for such software (mostly videogames), as well as DLC  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs).

DiscussionEdit

ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Mohammed Adam (T) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Cwf97 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Esteban16 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Peterchanws Brasig Le Yota de Mars YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Coloradohusky CptViraj BugWarp ʂɤɲ   Notified participants of WikiProject Video games

  •   Support David (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the inverse property («expansion of») would be better. --Tinker Bell 07:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Whether this is approved or not, it needs a different name - when I saw it on the proposal list I was very confused what it was about. "video game expansion" perhaps, or for the inverse, "expansion of video game"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: would you consider updating the label per Arthur's suggestion? --- Jura 04:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I've updated the label name. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the English name should probably be 'expansion for video game' rather than 'of', and make sure 'expansion' is singular. Nicereddy (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Amitie 10g, I see you've updated the name, but I think the property should be like "DLC 1" "expansion of videogame" Mario Kart 8 (Q13427106). Maybe it would be more difficult using it on infoboxes, but data is better organized. --Tinker Bell 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Trade (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Misc (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Is this intended to be limited to video games or not? --Yair rand (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • As the proporsal says, it is only for videogames software. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cwf97 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2019 (EST)
  •   Support With the new name change John Samuel (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics ChristianKl❫ 13:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose this should be made more general to also allow other types of software. Also I agree with Tinker Bell that the inverse would make more sense. We then could also use it for example for Browser Extensions. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Shape Expression for classEdit

   On hold
DescriptionShape Expression that members of a class should conform to
RepresentsShEx (Q29377880)
Data type⧼datatypes-type-EntitySchema⧽ (not available yet)
Domainclass
Example 1human (Q5)E10
Example 2film festival (Q220505)E11
Example 3film festival edition (Q27787439)E12
Example 4natural number (Q21199)E13

MotivationEdit

Property to link a class to the Shape Expression that members of it should conform to.

This will make it easier to query for Shape Expressions that exist, and quickly see what has been defined for a particular class. Jheald (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: Implementation will require EntitySchema to be added to the set of data-types that can be values for Wikidata statements. There is a ticket for this on Phabricator, which Léa hopes should be resolved in the coming weeks.[1]. Jheald (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Proposed. Jheald (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - PKM (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportMisterSynergy (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Dhx1 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This proposal needs to say much more about how it is supposed to work. Example 1 shows some of the problems. What does "member" mean here? Are only items that are an instance of (P31) to human (Q5) supposed to be covered, or are instances of subclasses (transistive-reflexive closure of subclass of (P279)) also covered? Then there are problems with the shape expression E11 as a shape for humans. The shape requires that the only instance of link for humans goes to human (Q5). The example shape needs to show at least some interesting conditions, such as requiring that children of humans are humans. Example 4 shows more problems. What items are covered here at all? Presumably natural numbers are not items at all, which means that they don't have any outgoing RDF triples. Even if they did, natural numbers should not be instances of instances of natural number. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Comments:
      • Interestingness: "The example shape needs to show at least some interesting conditions, such as requiring that children of humans are humans" Yes absolutely, but note that ShEx are only a couple of hours old. I think we will gradually expand it these coming days.
      • Members: I do not think this proposal lays any interpretation on the membership and I suppose it would be up to the consensus (or ontology war) whether it should be transitive.
      • We have lots of natural numbers, e.g., 42 (Q812996) with outgoing triples. I should say they all should have a numeric value (P1181) which could be check with ShEx.
      • Natural number are not "instances of instances of natural number", they are instances of natural numbers.
      • A further remark: There are apparent a lack of possibility to keep track of which ShEx are created, e.g., at one point it looked like two ShEx was created for humans. I think a property to keep track of ShEx would benefit the ShEx, helping them to navigate the created schemas, i.e., if you are looking for the ShEx for human you can go to Q5 and follow the link to the ShEx page. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The example is new, agreed, but that only makes the need for good examples higher. If there are no good examples of shapes to attach to classes then there is no reason to have this property. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, there are "natural numbers" as items in Wikidata, but the shape says that these are instances of instances of natural number (Q21199), which is not correct. And, yes, there should be a check that their numeric value (P1181) is a natural number (if that is possible in ShEx). Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • If the scope of a shape connected to a class is to be determined after the fact by the community then I'm completely opposed to this proposal. The scope needs to be nailed down explicitly before this property is allowed. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the note about "instance of instance of". This is actual not and "instance of instance of" and I think the way that people used this yesterday should be clarified. I would write the line "p:P31 @<instance-of-statement> ;" and similar the below line. In fact, I have changed the name now. I wonder if that clarify this issue? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I think that there is a clash of philosophies here. Wikidata has been very much ontology-as-you-go with no overall coordination and no enforcing of consistency. We have had property suggestions which guide us to some form of consistency, that may also catch errors and vandalism. ShEx would be a next step. While one could imaging a ShEx-police appearing in Wikidata, that roams about enforcing the one and only scheme upon editors and items, I do not think that is what would be happening. I think that ShExs would be gradually built in an interplay with continuous development and refinement of Wikidata items. For instance, the E34 defines Danish nouns which a ShEx could say should always have a grammatical gender. It appears that proper nouns, plurale tantum and the word druk (L46327) form a problematic set where the grammatical gender might exist and can be set, or it might be unknown or have no value. To resolve this problem one should have an interplay between changes in the Wikidata items and the ShEx. Such problems could be discovered by other means, but I think ShEx would also be a help and steer us into a direction of consistency. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - NavinoEvans (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Moebeus (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd rather make an item about a shape and link that. --- Jura 09:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Which advantages do you see in such an approach, compared to this proposal? —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • One could describe the shapes in a structured way. Currently, we seem to be getting loads of # to do just that. Something we mostly avoided in any other part of Wikidata.--- Jura 09:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: As I understand it, the shapes themselves are meant to describe themselves in a structured, RDF-compliant, queryable way. Isn't that meant to be part of the point of them? Or perhaps that's SHACL (Q29377821) ?? Jheald (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm still learning about the syntax .. maybe it's actually possible. Looking at it's current implementation at Wikidata, maybe we can't do it here, at least not with statements as we would usually do it. If we create a datatype for shapes, supposedly we could have several properties in addition to this one .. one could be "shape expression described in this item", "shape expression associated with list". --- Jura 07:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @Jura1: Yes. I would hope we wouldn't need "shape expression described in this item", because I hope the shape expression (Exxx) would be its own item, and queryable in its own right. (That would depend on whether a ShEx has an RDF representation that could be included in WDQS -- that would certainly be the case for SHACL; I hope it's true for ShEx). But additional properties like "shape expression associated with list" I would certainly see as likely to be useful. I proposed "Shape Expression for class" first, as it seems likely to be the simplest and most common case, and worth a property in its own right. But there will be shape expressions for things identified other than as members of classes, and we will in turn want ways to point to them. Jheald (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Two posters on Wikidata-l confirm that there is a standard RDF serialisation of ShEx [2]. So it should be straightforward to load this either into WDQS to describe a shape entity; or into an associated triplestore, that could service federated queries from WDQS. Jheald (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
          A phabricator ticket is open for this, phab:T225701 Jheald (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Re "shape expression described in this item": Possibly, but I don't see a plan for that now and there might not be much added value in developing more GUI as it could already be done with Q-entities. --- Jura 10:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Marking as on hold since the datatype is not available. This is not an assessment of the consensus for / against the proposal. − Pintoch (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tinker Bell 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

apertureEdit

   Done: aperture (P7863) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionaperture of the camera lens
Representsaperture (Q6434802)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameteren:template:Infobox photographic lens aperture
Domaincamera lens (Q192234)
Allowed valuesA range with min and max value or a fixed value as both is possible.
Example 1Canon EF 800mm lens (Q5033222) → 5.6
Example 2Samyang 500mm f/8 (Q25038830) → 8.0
Example 3Canon EF 1200mm lens (Q5033201) → 5.6 (applies to part (P518) "max aperture"); 32 → (applies to part (P518) → "min aperture")
Sourceen:Aperture
Planned useI like to add the aperture to the lenses, which has wiki data item.
Number of IDs in sourceFor Canon we have currently lens items, where it would make sense to add this aperture.

MotivationEdit

I like to add this value to the photo lenses, which have an item in Wikidata. GodeNehler (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support --Tinker Bell 20:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Make sure to distinguish this from Property:P6790 (f-number) or list it as a related property. Infomuse (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Infomuse Thank you for the hint. As I am not a nativ speaker for english, and checking this issue again, I got the impression that 'f-number' might be the better Property, as 'aperture' seams to be the mechanic, but 'f-number' is the value, which I like to add. But in the Lens articles, like mentioned above, and in the template is the term 'aperture'. So I am not sure what is correct. The second issue: I have just add the 'f-number' to the Samyang 500mm f/8. There I got the warning 'Entities using the f-number property should be instances of photograph (or of a subclass of it), but Samyang 500mm f/8currently isn't.' From that I got the Impression that the 'f-number' is the real value, with which a picture is taken. So not absolutely clear for me. --GodeNehler (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment After thinking about the issue, I got to the conclusion, that aperture is the correct term as aperture means the mechanical construct, which is correct for a lens. --GodeNehler (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A range is not sufficient because there are 2 different kinds of aperture ranges. First, some zoom lenses have different maximum apertures depending on the selected focal length (for example, w:en:Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS). Second, at a given focal length, a lens has a minimum and maximum possible aperture that the photographer can select. So we really need 4 numbers to characterize lens aperture ranges as commonly specified (min/max aperture when zoomed wide/tele). 2620:0:1000:3216:5413:4AF0:7532:8655 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The IP is right. This can be fixed with the possibility to add up to 4 values. Maybe there is a need to add infos like 'minimum aperture', 'maximum aperture' for prime lens, 'minimum aperture at maximum focal length', 'maximum aperture at maximum focal length', 'minimum aperture at minimum focal length', 'maximum aperture at minimum focal length' for zoom lenses and 'fixed aperture' e.g. for mirror lenses. --GodeNehler (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This proposal is not ready: clearly it should not have "Property" as datatype. A "Property" datatype means that the values of this property will be properties themselves. Please pick an appropriate datatype and add examples which are consistent with that choice. − Pintoch (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tinker Bell: Thanks for fixing the datatype - however, the examples don't have a "quantity" value right now - can you fix them to do that? Or perhaps GodeNehler can take care of this? Do you still think we need this property? The description also should be fixed (needs to be shorter, can't have wiki text or links). ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the examples. But, I think there is, at least, two ways to store the data: for example, Canon EF 1200mm lens (Q5033201):

Storing each value in one statement
quantity 5.6 (qualifier applies to part (P518) "max aperture"); quantity 32 → (qualifier applies to part (P518) → "min aperture")
The other way, is calculating the average of maximum and minimum aperture, and storing it as the main value, and using upperBound and lowerBound to specify the range of aperture
quantity 18.8 (bound: 13.2)

The average is obtained doing  , the bound,   and  . For fixed values, bound=0. We can obtain the minimum and maximum values adding or substracting 13.2 to the average. I know, it's a lot harder, but it allows using one statement for each range. --Tinker Bell 03:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Tinker Bell:,
I am little bit lost with the values 'quantity' and 'bound'. I can understand them mathematically. I would name it capability of a lens. But these values are really unusual for me. I have never seen them together with camera lenses. Quantity I understand somehow, bound not. I would neither put 'quantity' or 'bound' to a lens item, as these values are not common in photography. --GodeNehler (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
GodeNehler, «quantity» and «bound» are part of Wikidata terminology: «quantity» is the datatype of the value, and «bound» is an optional value that Wikidata allows you to specify for a quantity when you edit the statement. No one will write these words explicity, there aren't properties. 16:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

number of pins, number of pin positionsEdit

   Under discussion
Description2 related properties:
  • number of pins: number of contacts that an electrical connector has (excluding any grounding shroud not used for communication)
  • number of pin positions: number of positions in an electrical connector, including empty or keyed positions
Representselectrical contact (Q394001)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameter"num_pins" in en:template:Infobox connector; "contacts" in w:en:Template:Infobox CPU socket
Domainitem: Subclasses of electrical connector (Q2119531). optical fiber connector (Q2296938) could be added later, pending discussion of how to handle optical module (Q48740842)s (which have electrical contacts on one end and optical connections on the other).
Allowed valuespositive integers
Allowed unitsnone
Example 1USB-C connector (Q58051489)
→ "number of pins" → 24
→ "number of pin positions" → 24
Example 2NEMA 5-15 (Q24288456)
→ "number of pins" → 3
→ "number of pin positions" → 3
Example 36P2C modular connector (Q64831598)
→ "number of pins" → 2
→ "number of pin positions" → 6
Example 4Intel HD Audio connector (Q64764371)
→ "number of pins" → 9
→ "number of pin positions" → 10
citation: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005512/boards-and-kits/desktop-boards.html
Example 5Socket F (Q1475023)
→ "number of pins" → 1207
→ "number of pin positions" → 1225
Planned useAnnotating items for electrical connectors. They could also be generalized to optical fiber connectors, since it's fundamentally the same concept.
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Robot and gadget jobsWhen only "number of pins" is specified, "number of pin positions" can be populated with the same value.
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/contact area count
Type constraint - subclass ofelectrical connector (Q2119531)

MotivationEdit

For annotating items for electrical connectors (see connector (P2935)).

Why are 2 properties needed? Some connectors have additional positions which are not filled. For example, the RJ11 w:en:Modular connector has 6 physical positions, but only 2 of them are populated. Similarly, the Parallel ATA (Q230360) data connector has 40 positions but only 39 pins, since one position is keyed. The unfilled positions should be counted when the connector's conventional numbering includes them.

Aliases: replace "pin" with "contact" or "conductor"; same without the initial "number of" 2620:0:1000:3216:5413:4AF0:7532:8655 23:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics 169.234.25.175 20:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • In principle, we could do it by combining qualifiers with an entity for a pin; there are just some practical issues:
  • It's not totally obvious for an editor which combination to use, and I don't see a way to hint recommended values. For example, quantity (P1114) with applies to part (P518) looks just as plausible (even if you're not supposed to use it that way). Also, people might use other elements besides the intended "pins" and "pin positions", e.g. pogo pin (Q1400617), wire (Q551997), or lead (Q947546). This will make querying more difficult.
  • It's easier to express a constraint that the "pins" and "pin positions" should be specified together when they are expressed as a property.
  • We might want to generalize this to support w:en:optical connectors; we would then have to add some items for pretty abstract concepts that encompass "electrical contact", "termination of a single optical fiber" (is there even a term for that?), and positions thereof. These would be hard to find.
In any case, there are lots of existing "number of X" properties, where X is a domain-specific part that an item contains. 2620:0:1000:3216:5413:4AF0:7532:8655 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems like a fine idea. —Scs (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Split support and oppose   Oppose For the given examples, RJ11 is only valid for countries that only host 2 wires. You can find RJ11 with 4 wires in 6 positions. RJ45 can also be used to replace RJ11, so RJ11 and RJ45 will have several possibilities. In addition, you write "electrical connector" which is quite broad: you give an example of an IC, which enters the electronic domain. With an electronics training, you can find a multitude of cases (so number of pins variable) for a single component (therefore for a single manufacturer and a single function and sometimes with a single denomination). The differences are according to the use of the component: assembly, power, disposition, etc. For the multilingual side of WD and the complexity of the domain (electricity), I fear that this future property brings errors. Of course, in obvious cases, this property will work, but contributors will not stop there. —Eihel (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback!
  • Regarding RJ11, the Wikipedia article explicitly says RJ11 requires a 2-wire connector (without citation); if you have better information please update that. I switched the example to 6P2C modular connector (Q64831598) for precision, which I forgot to do earlier.
  • I'm not sure what IC you're referring to, but assume you're talking about the CPU socket. I'm aware that a given IC can be packaged in multiple ways, but as far as I've seen, a given CPU socket necessarily has a well-defined number and arrangement of pins, so I don't see the issue.
  • Regarding the risk of misuse, would a property type constraint (should be used on connectors only and not ICs or other components) address this? I'll update the proposal.
73.202.12.249 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. w:fr:RJ11#Belgique. Indeed, 6P2C is normalized in the sense of the use of pins.
  2. Yes, CPU sockets remain the same as far back as I can remember. But I suggest you look for the term 7805 on your search engine (only browse images to make your life easier). It is a simple CI used in voltage regulation and there is a multitude of form, manufacturer, etc. , so several possibilities. And it's the same for a multitude of CIs, from the simplest to the most complex. Sorry. There is conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838)
    relation (P2309)instance or subclass of (Q30208840)
    class (P2308)electronic component (Q11653)
    constraint status (P2316)mandatory constraint (Q21502408)
    but this restriction will overshadow many items (In addition I do not know if it works!)
  3. In the content of pages linked to the infobox on enwiki, it seems to be appropriate. 78xx does not contain a number of pins and the page does not contain this infobox. —Eihel (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I had pretty much the same ideabut called it "contact area count. The reason is that eg. an LGA CPU has no pins. So I searched for a more general name that can be used for multiple things. number of pin positions is an interesting idea, however I'm not sure if this is really the way to go.
An example: A CPU socket has 1000 pin positions. CPU a) has 900 pins, because it's missing some workstation ECC RAM functions. CPU b) has also 900 pins, but not the pins for ECC RAM, but for the ones for CPU interconnects (so a single socket setup). CPU 3) has only 800 pins. It supports CPU interconnect and ECC RAM. He 200 missing pins are because it's a low end version that does not use as much power. How would you include that for the socket (and is the socket the right place to collect that information or should this rather be collected in the CPU item)
A second example: The Type 2 connector that is used to charge electric cars has 7 pins. The maximum output is ~43 kW with 7 pins. For slow charging out of eg. Schuko plugs it is about 3 kW and here only 5 pins are used. It is the same connector and the same layout. One charging type just misses 2 metal connectors. --D-Kuru (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  Comment It sounds like maybe the item for the interconnection standard should list in some way the meaning of all the pins? Though that might require an item for each pin position that further describes it? Like, pin 3 carries this signal with this voltage, etc.?? And then items that conform to that standard would specify that conformance, and which specific pins they actually use? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
If it's not an open standard you will never now why one pin is used and the other isn't. A description for every pin is just not usefull in my opinion. In my opinion a "number of used pins" is not really ncecessary since a configuration can change over time and with the used device. If eg. a CPU socket hast 4000 pins and a CPU that fits the socket has 3000 pins, the number of pins for the socket is still 4000 (even some are not used - for now - but could be used at some point) and the CPU also still has only 3000 pins. For me, this applies also for eg. USB or SATA where one pin isn't in use. If USB version 2.0 uses 10 out of 20 pins, the number of pins would be tagged as 10 on the USB connector side. If USB 3.0 uses 20 pins, the pin information could be tagged for version 2.0 and 3.0. But you would not have to set any information about how many pins are not used in the USB connector. What if the USB connector is used anywhere else for some other connection that actually uses all 20 pins right from the start. It's an open standard, so this could happen quite easily. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting idea. I'm curious to see how it goes. --- Jura 09:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment So if 2 properties are actually needed here, could somebody split the template into 2 separate proposal templates with the appropriate examples etc, to make it a little easier on the property creator(s)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

value group numberEdit

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier only) an higher level of series ordinal used to separate various lists already with series ordinal (P1545)
Data typeString
Domainany
Example 1(Q3595028) fanqie (P5523) (Q2391630) (series ordinal (P1545)=1, value group number=1), (Q55806623) (series ordinal (P1545)=2, value group number=1)
Example 2(Q3595028) fanqie (P5523) (Q2391630) (series ordinal (P1545)=1, value group number=2), (Q55806688) (series ordinal (P1545)=2, value group number=2)
Example 3MISSING
Planned useUse as a qualifier of fanqie (P5523) and ideographic description sequences (P5753)

MotivationEdit

See User_talk:Ivan_A._Krestinin#Bot_edits_on_P5523 as the background of the proposal. GZWDer (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Item Equivalence Fanqie (initial) Fanqie (final) References
A Guangyun (Q2189818)
A Jiyun (Q35792)
A Hongwu Zhengyun (Q10958946)
B Guangyun (Q2189818)
B Jiyun (Q35792), Hongwu Zhengyun (Q10958946)
C Guangyun (Q2189818)
C Jiyun (Q35792), Hongwu Zhengyun (Q10958946)
D Guangyun (Q2189818)
D Jiyun (Q35792)

There are 9 pairs of data, each consisting of an initial and final character, and these 9 pairs can be further grouped into four equivalent pairs of data (A,B,C,D). Are there any existing properties that can be used to handle this situation? KevinUp (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the value group number can be modified to "A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2" or "1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b" to mark the equivalence of certain data sets? KevinUp (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Opensofias
Tobias1984
Micru
Arthur Rubin
Cuvwb
TomT0m
Physikerwelt
Lymantria
Bigbossfarin
Infovarius
Helder
PhilMINT
Malore
Nomen ad hoc
Lore.mazza51
Wikisaurus   Notified participants of WikiProject Mathematics for suggestions on how to handle this situation. The proposed property may also have other applications. KevinUp (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment @KevinUp: is the suggestion here to have a general mechanism to handle two-dimensional indexing, not just something specific to these characters? That sounds like a reasonable thing to do in principle, but in practice the items would still show up as a one-dimensional list within the Wikidata UI. "Series ordinal" doesn't have to be just a number, you could for example combine letters and numbers, or have two numbers separated by a comma or other special character. Is this really needed? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: Yes, the idea is to have a general mechanism to handle two-dimensional indexing that can be applied not just to these characters. In the examples given above, "value group number" is used to indicate that group 1, which is represented by (Q2391630) and (Q55806623) and group 2, which is represented by (Q2391630) and (Q55806688) are distinct groups that are not the same. The "value group number" does not indicate any rank but is used to indicate distinction. KevinUp (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    To add another layer of complexity, in the table I have prepared for the item "笈", there are four different groups (A,B,C,D) and each group can be described by more than one method, e.g. in group D, (Q55414074) (series ordinal 1) + (Q54873157) (series ordinal 2) and (Q54879270) (series ordinal 1) + (Q54873157) (series ordinal 2) are equivalent, so we could perhaps use a second character in the value group number, e.g. "4a", "4b" to indicate equivalence of the subgroups a and b within group 4. KevinUp (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you are using series ordinal like 3a or 3.4, they are not much machine readable or queryable. Although this proposal (with only one property) does not work well in more than two dimensions.--GZWDer (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    @GZWDer: To solve the issues of [1] series ordinal such as 3a or 3.4 not machines readable [2] the property in this proposal not working well in more than two dimensions, I suggest the following: KevinUp (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    1. Replace fanqie (P5523) with two new properties: initial fanqie character and final fanqie character (as originally suggested by you) - This is because initial and final fanqie have different properties, i.e. the initial character shares the same initial consonant while the final character shares the same vowel, consonant ending and tone with that of the queried item.
    2. Use series ordinal (P1545) for groups A,B,C,D in the example above (this would indicate that the fanqie readings are distinct).
    3. Apply the proposed property (value group number/group ordinal) to values that have the same series ordinal. This is analogous to A1, A2, A3 in the example above.
    For fanqie, values with the same series ordinal but different value group number/group ordinal are similar in a way, e.g. 其,極,忌 (initial fanqie from A1, A2, A3) all share the same initial consonant in Middle Chinese. KevinUp (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the responses. So now I'm wondering, where did the proposed label "value group number" come from? Is that a common term used for these character representations, or is that something GZWDer came up with? If we are to do this I think I'd prefer a shorter name if possible. "group ordinal" perhaps? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's not a common term used for these character representations. I also prefer a shorter name such as "group ordinal" as long as it has the meaning "higher level of series ordinal". KevinUp (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I remembered a similar situation at disjoint union of (P2738), where different sets are saved. A special value list values as qualifiers (Q23766486) is used as a dummy value and actual list is saved as qualifier. It might be applicable here. It will look like (Q77040173) fanqie (P5523) list values as qualifiers (Q23766486) / follows (P155) (Q55414074) / followed by (P156) (Q54873157).  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midleading (talk • contribs) at 10:16, December 2, 2019‎ (UTC).

x-offsetEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionoffset on the x-axis or primary axis, abscissa
Representsx-axis (Q25599399)
Data typeQuantity
Allowed unitsif applicable
Example 1SWSW block (Q65965927) → 0 block (Q66319570)
Example 2NWNW block (Q65965923) → 0 block (Q66319570)
Example 3SESE block (Q65965939) → 3 block (Q66319570)

y-offsetEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionoffset on the y-axis or secondary axis, ordinate
Representsy-axis (Q26262125)
Data typeQuantity
Allowed unitsif applicable
Example 1SWSW block (Q65965927) → 0 block (Q66319570)
Example 2NWNW block (Q65965923) → 3 block (Q66319570)
Example 3SESE block (Q65965939) → 0 block (Q66319570)

MotivationEdit

Maybe we have this somehow, but I don't think so. Feel free to add a property for z-axis. Above samples from w:Section_(United_States_land_surveying)#Subdivision_of_a_section (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 01:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment Could this be somehow done with our geo coordinates datatype? I realize this is for a relative coordinate vs absolute, but as presented here this seems to assume "x axis" = distance eastward, "y axis" = distance northward (I think?) which would otherwise be rather arbitrary. Is "x axis", "y axis" actually the terminology used in the original source for this proposal? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my first thought too, but the datatype has degree as unit hardcoded. For PLSS terminology, see w:Public_Land_Survey_System#Commonly_used_terms; for the axes, w:Cartesian coordinate system. --- Jura 14:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
PLSS apparently uses "range" for east-west coordinate, and "township" for north-south, according to your source? Those terms seem confusing though. Anyway, "x" and "y" are definitely not defined. If we do have wikidata properties for this, we definitely need a clearer name. Maybe just "eastward distance" and "northward" distance", if that's how these should be defined? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, we already have elevation above sea level (P2044) as a property for z-axis, although perhaps a relative measure is needed there too - "relative altitude"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Reading the article last week, I concluded that a township is a much larger unit than a block or a section. I don't think the terminology needs to be identical. --- Jura 11:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Nomen ad hoc: I updated the sample. I think it's sufficient to define it in terms of blocks. Compare Subdivision_of_a_section. What do you think. --- Jura 11:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    OK. Thank you. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC).
  • But "block" is an area, not a distance. This whole thing doesn't make sense to me - would these properties only apply to the 16 stated items? Or where else would it be used? If it's less than 100 or so items that could use this, I   Oppose special properties just for this purpose. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Prefer x-offset and y-offset as labels. There *might* be other contexts where this could be useful. Jheald (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment thanks for your feedback. I updated the sample and label accordingly. Don't hesitate to improve it further. --- Jura 14:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Voting systemEdit

MotivationEdit

Use to allow linking elections to their voting systems (direct/indirect, etc). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Dom Tubezlob Oravrattas Sarilho1 Yair rand Siwhitehouse Louisecrow Nomen ad hoc


  Notified participants of WikiProject elections --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support --Trade (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • tend to   Weak oppose, seems redundant with and . author  TomT0m / talk page 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Anyway, allowed values should be « instance of voting system », not « subclass of voting system », or a specific election like would be an instance of « voting system ». And does not make any sense. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Except that doesn't make sense - its not a subtype of the election system it uses. And I meant that the value of the property should be a subclass of a voting system. I'm not sure I understand what you mean in the second comment - its not , but rather 2016 United States presidential election (Q699872) voting system indirect election (Q877353). --DannyS712 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    @DannyS712: It may make perfect sense … if you consider the french label, which is scrutin de liste proportionnel, in english « proportional list voting ». Any proportional list voting is a voting, so we have
    < proportional list voting > subclass of (P279)   < voting >
    , any israely legislative election is a proportional list voting, so we have
    < israely legislative election > subclass of (P279)   < proportional list voting >
    , and September 2019 Israeli legislative election (Q64159775) is an instance of everything. If you choose that model you certainly not have to express in all elections items like September 2019 Israeli legislative election (Q64159775) which type of election they are because they are already classified as election of that type, with less redundancy. then makes explicit how we classify elections, these are the subclasses we are looking for if we want the voting system, because there is other criteria with which we classify elections (for example any israeli legislative election is a national election, which make « israeli legislative election » a subclass of « national election »).
    But I must admit I did not look in details to the english label and english definition of this item. If a voting system is a set of rule, it make perfect sense to link an election to a voting system. This set of rules defines a process, that is instanciated at each time this type of election type.
    Essentially, thinking about this I’d try to define things like this.
    An election is a process in which some people are chosen for some offices or a decision is taken, (referendum),so
    < election > subclass of (P279)   < process >
    .
    An election follows some rules, defined usually by a law : main regulatory text (P92). In a sense the rules entirely defines the process of the elections. The rules can be instanciated many times, for example the rules for the american president election are instanciated many times. In that sense the USA presidential election is … a voting system. If you see en:voting system it redirects to « electoral system », which is defined exactly like that, this is consistent. So it’s enough to say that the Trump election is a USA presidential election to link it to its voting system.
    On the other hand, party-list proportional representation#See_also (Q31764), if you see the english article, is defined as a voting system … family, which changes everything. You would have to rename this property « voting system family » to be consistent, according to the examples. Then you are looking for instances of « voting system family » You don’t hav . So I think to make all this consistent, you would actually have 2016 United States presidential election (Q699872) voting system family indirect election (Q877353). But I think all this is essentally the same analysis as before, so this is redundant and not very useful as well, we can do better without this property at all … author  TomT0m / talk page 09:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportStudiesWorld (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Need to document also the relation with main regulatory text (P92) (perhaps a costraint that there should be both or one implies the other?) --Sabas88 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Actually the regulatory text is tight to the election type, for example any israely legislative election (on a certain period of time) has the same rules. The statement should be made of items such as « israeli legislative election » to avoid redundancy, not on any election instances. It’s easy by a query or in lua to find the text if you know it’s an instance of « USA presidential election » then. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This seems like a good idea, but I don't think the current samples (and definitions) are up to it. It would be good to have items that actually describe the voting system used in a given election. Maybe "allowed values" should be instances, not classes. --- Jura 14:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support Maybe we can start with the above and gradually increase the quality (and granularity) of items being used. I don't think it helps mixing them with P31 values in general. Allowed values would probably be classes even if a specific system would only be used in a single election. --- Jura 16:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. The format and available values need refining, and I'm still not sure whether this should be stored at the level of individual elections or types of elections. --Yair rand (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support @Yair rand: In 2018 voters in Maine switched to using instant-runoff voting (Q1491219) for elections to statewide office (including for US Senators and Representatives); it is appropriate, in such an example, to make clear (should items for specific elections in that state be created) that the elections prior to 2018 used first-past-the-post voting (Q5557375) and the ones afterward used instant-runoff voting (Q1491219). Mahir256 (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that can be expressed by start/end date qualifiers. --Yair rand (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

part numberEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe item's part number
Representsidentifier (Q853614)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainproperty
Allowed unitsa string that contains numbers and/or letters
Example 1AMD Phenom II X6 1090T (Q66481199) → HDT90ZFBK6DGR (OEM number), HDT90ZFBGRBOX (boxed number)
Example 2AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX (Q56062941) → YD299XAZUIHAF (OEM number), YD299XAZAFWOF (boxed number)
Example 3Core i5-760 (Q15223620) → BV80605001908AN (OEM number), BX80605I5760 (boxed number, english version), BXC80605I5760 (boxed number, english version)
Sourceen:Part number
Planned useAdd to every item for which a part number can be found

MotivationEdit

While working on CPUs, I noticed that this property does not seem to exist. I had primarly CPUs in mind, but I'm sure there are a lot more items that have a part number in real life.
However, as shown in the example, there can be more than one part number for the same productname. So you have to be able to add some sort of referece to the information (eg. "OEM" or "boxed" or something like that) --D-Kuru (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ChristianKl
ArthurPSmith
d1g
JakobVoss
Jura
Jsamwrites
MisterSynergy
Salgo60
Micru
Pintoch
Harshrathod50
Wildly boy
ZI Jony
Ederporto
99of9
Danrok
Eihel
Emw
Fralambert
GZWDer
Ivan A. Krestinin
Jonathan Groß
Joshbaumgartner
Kolja21
Kristbaum
MSGJ
Mattflaschen
MichaelSchoenitzer
Nightwish62
Pablo Busatto
Paperoastro
PinkAmpersand
Srittau
Thierry Caro
Tobias1984
Vennor
Yellowcard
Ivanhercaz
DannyS712
Tinker Bell
Bodhisattwa


  Notified participants of WikiProject Properties Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

(in such a case we don’t have to discriminate between the user part number to the manufacturer one because it’s used by a user in a design)
Or … there is several numbers because there is subdesigns by the manufacturer of the same processor, in which case it may be possible to subclass the processor model item with fresh new items to reflect that, with their own properties and values to reflect the differences. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know the CPU type has a unique ID that changes under some conditions. The manufacturer is not such a condition - at least as far as I know. Since the ID is unique to every processor type I switched the datatype to external-id. It seems that the different numbers are more to indicate which segment of the global market is targeted. If the CPUs ID is ABC1 in the boxed version you will not find an appropriate CPU when it is labled ABC2. Even they are actually the same die under the hood. I don't think that a new item is really the route to go if there is just a different ID, but all other values stay the same. You don't create a new item for every version of some program, do you? --D-Kuru (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  Question Is this at all related to Global Trade Item Number (P3962)? See also the discussion on this old proposal. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes and now I would say. The part number is not the European Article Number. There is no bar code on the processor. But it's shares some properties since it's also a unique ID for every product. --D-Kuru (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support given that it's distinct from the EAN. ChristianKl❫ 07:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question for me it's unclear if it is different from the stock-keeping unit (Q399757) given by the manufacturer? Dom (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
stock keeping units are retailer codes that track price, manufacturer and product information of the product and are used to track sales. The part number is more like a barcode. An individual code for certain product types. Since it's not about tracking - at least not that I know - they are different in my opinion --D-Kuru (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

associated withEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionUsed to describe a generic association of one item/concept with another, where we don't have a more specific property available
Data typeItem
Example 1Christmas cake (Q556060)Christmas (Q19809) (qualifier subject has role (P2868) - "food associated with the festival")
Example 2We Are the Champions / We Will Rock You (Q66008229)News of the World (Q309021) (qualifier subject has role (P2868) - "single taken from this album")
Example 3Handbuch zum Evangelischen Gesangbuch (Q53631328)Evangelisches Gesangbuch (Q1381294) (qualifier subject has role (P2868) - "de:Kommentarwerk"/"en:Commentaries related to the work") Evangelisches Gesangbuch (Q1381294)Handbuch zum Evangelischen Gesangbuch (Q53631328) (qualifier object has role (P3831) - "de:Kommentarwerk"/"en:Commentaries related to the work")
Example 4Söderala church parish (Q10688470)Söderala parish (Q10688474) (qualifier subject has role (P2868) - "administrative parish associated with, but not the same as, a religious parish")
Example 5Reading (Q60578270)Reading (Q7300456) (qualifier subject has role (P2868) - "constituency with the same name but different boundaries")
Example 6King Arthur (Q45792)Eildon Hill (Q3049397) (qualifier subject has role (P2868) - "legendary burial place")
Example 7mangalsutra (Q2767663)marital status (Q11920938) (qualifier subject has role (P2868) - "object used to signify")
Planned useWill implement for administrative area relationships to begin with
See alsoinspired by (P941), used by (P1535), based on (P144), influenced by (P737), different from (P1889), etc

MotivationEdit

This is intended to be used to describe some way in which two items are related to each other, but where there isn't an existing property. The number of potential ways that something can be related/connected to another concept is very large. We have properties for many types of relationship (eg inspired by (P941), used by (P1535) or based on (P144)) but we are unlikely ever to create properties for all the ones we want to describe - some will be very specialised and only need to be used a few times.

My thought is that we can create a generic property to link two items together, with a mandatory qualifier to specify what exactly that relationship is (I've suggested subject has role (P2868), but perhaps a new qualifier property would be needed). The values would be items created to describe that specific form of relationship, allowing for queries. This is similar to relative (P1038)/type of kinship (P1039), which we use where one of the standard family properties like father (P22) can't cover the specific relationship.

Thanks to Moebeus & Salgo60 for some of the examples - see svwp and phab for more notes on parishes. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Strong support Nice! Moebeus (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ainali (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment it seems to me that we already have a more specific properties for some of the samples above, notably "significant place", "different from", "main subject". --- Jura 15:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: Good catch. I think there are certainly some overlaps - #6 would certainly fit nicely for "significant place", which I had forgotten was a property! And agree that "main subject" could work for #3 (perhaps with a qualifier to say "is a commentary" rather than any other kind of critical work). But some of the others definitely don't seem to fit in existing properties - eg #1, #2 or #7.
For #4/#5, fuzzy place relationships, using "different from" seems a bit awkward - I can see that it's a possibility, but it doesn't feel like quite the right relationship. It could be that the two items we want to connect aren't really confused by people, and the property description implies that they are. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Replacing "main subject" with this seems like a terrible idea. I wonder if there isn't the risk of more similar lapses.
Depending on the names, I think you could have both "significant place" and "different from". We also have "facet of" which overlaps with this. For properties there is "see also", but for items, I vaguely recall that this wasn't thought of being a good idea. --- Jura 17:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of properties that overlap with this in various ways - in which case we should definitely use those properties. The idea here is to have a fallback option for when those don't work. Salgo60 - you suggested the Kommentarwerk example - is there a reason you thought "main subject" wouldn't work there? I think Jura is right that for that particular case, "main subject" seems more appropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support - Salgo60 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful generic property to have. Jheald (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I've long wondered why we don't have an item equivalent of see also (P1659) (which is for properties). But of course this should be limited only to the cases where there ISN"T an existing property that fits the relationship. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hard solid oppose per previous objections. Propose the properties that we should have in our ontology. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. If it turns out that we have (or later add) a more specific property, one can always update the item, but IMHO it’s good to be able to capture the relationship. - PKM (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Not sure about this. Existing properties such as facet of (P1269) are probably fine enough. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I that case this is really a totally unspecified relationship, this will discourage people to propose properties if there is an alternate solution, and the qualifier to precise the relationship is an open gate for nonsense. Proposing a property is hard, creating an item or misusing one existing in a meaninless cryptic sense is really easy. We’ll end up with a mess. author  TomT0m / talk page 06:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll note that this exact argument, only in reverse, is used a lot when shooting down proposals for narrower properties. "We don't need this, we have a less specific property, just use qualifiers to specify it". The way I look at it, it's useful to have a kind of generic "supra-property" like this and use it when modelling: when and if we see a pattern emerge and there is significant volume, it'll be much easier to then propose something more specific and separate out the relevant property/item pairs, rather than starting with a property that is very/overly specific and that ends up being seldom used. There are quite a few of those. Moebeus (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Moebeus: I don’t dislike generic properties if they make sense on their own. For example instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) are widely used on ontologies outside of Wikidata and Help:TomT0m/Classification can be well defined. This however needs carefulness. In such cases it can be counter productive to create to specific properties that are essentially the same relationships, but for two kinds of more specific items, this creates dispertion, a discrepancy of practices and models for the same thing. However, in this case, the exact same criticism as « two many properties and different ways to the same stuffs » is . Such a property is totally unspecified, and the probable usecase will be « OK, so I’ve this problem … so what do I do ? Oh, I have an excellent idea ! I’ll use the « relationship property with this qualifier ». And on another item, antother person on a similar case « Oh, I have an excellent idea, I’ll use the relationship property with that combined with that other qualifier ». Except there is no guarantee that a pattern will emerge or that the use will be consistent for similar cases, we already have such problems with current properties sometimes. People do something as they think it’s a good idea but it’s not always easy to decipher what their idea was in the first place. I think that models should be discussed at least a little bit. If their is a usecase, we should be able to find a not to bad solution and document it at least a bit. Such a generic property would in my opinion would have the same problems than too much specific one : too much solutions to express the same thing. So it’s not really a suprise that the argument is reversed, the solution is probably an equilibrium between the two, a compromise between regularity and flexibility/expressiveness. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose The fact that example were proposed that can already be handeled with existing properties suggests the property would actually used in situations where our existing properties can already handel the situation. ChristianKl❫ 07:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per above and earlier arguments. --Yair rand (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the above. NMaia (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree many of the examples are inappropriate since there is a more specific prop.
  •   Support To all naysayers: how do you justify the existence of see also (P1659)? BTW, despite its definition, it's used to relate not only props but also categories. Eg route map (P15) is related to Category:Pages using Wikidata property P15 (Q28039620) and Q55283072
    • see also (P1659) is not intended for anything but properties. Its existence prevents the proliferation of meta-properties that would each have very few uses. It is applied among a much smaller set of pages, with a very different audience and different goals from item pages. Swpb (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The fact that dc:relation and rdfs:seeAlso are some of the oldest props on the semantic web should tell us something
  •   Support Quite often in source databases you have such kinds of relations, with no additional info about the nature of the relation. Isn't it better to capture the link, rather than dismiss it as unspecific? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • If the goal is to import data that's already tagged with dc:relation or rdfs:seeAlso, why do you support a property that has neither of those names for it but a quite different one? If the goal is to copy data from an existing relation, then naming the same relation differently should be justified. ChristianKl❫ 17:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Can you provide examples of data sets that use either that you would want to import into Wikidata? ChristianKl❫ 17:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • It does seem that see also (P1659) gets used currently in a constraint violating way. I don't think that needs justification, it rather needs a removal of the constraint violating uses. ChristianKl❫ 17:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Are those source databases compiled using a wiki model? I think we need to remember how the properties we create here will be used (and misused) by a distributed editor base with a wide range of proficiency. Swpb (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • (The above parent comment is now ambiguous, due to a comment being added in the middle, so to clarify authorship: The entire oppose/support/support/support set of bullet points above is authored by Vladimir Alexiev, except for the intervening point by Swpb.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Rename. It's not a property, but a stub. It could be
  • named as proposed to be associated with or short to relate to
  • described as choose a suitable existing property instead of this stub or propose a new one at WD:PP
  • provided with restriction forbidding the stub if a real property already associates this two elements.
This tool would prevent us from semantical straining of property just because there's yet no suitable one.
Anticipated flood of such stubs can be held back by forbidding two stubs, which
  • associate an element with two R-related elements
  • or the other way round which associate two R elements with the same third element.
Where R stands for C* or C*+I or P*, C for subclass of (P279), * for Transitive closure (Q1501387), + for function composition (Q244761), I for instance of (P31) and P for part of (P361).
Abc82 (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just a few minutes ago ran into a situation where this property (at least as a temporary measure) would have helped - how does one relate IOPS (Q539454) to FLOPS (Q188768)? Neither one have many regular statements, but they are certainly "related" as both being measures of (different aspects of) computer performance. I couldn't think of anything to do, and so the two items remain unconnected. I don't think this is a helpful situation. If people over-use this sort of generic property in certain domains, at least it allows us to do WDQS queries to find such cases and fix them. Without this property we make improving Wikidata harder. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    • When I see that example the first thing I see is that IOPS (Q539454) lacks P31/P279. If this property would get you to use it instead of doing the work the item actually needs which is to start with P31/P279, I would see that as a negative outcome. It seems to me like the shared relationship between might be that they should have a P31 or P279. ChristianKl❫ 20:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @ChristianKl: I don't quite follow what you are saying here. I added a P31 for IOPS (Q539454) (the same as the one for FLOPS (Q188768) but that leaves them only extremely loosely related. Did you have something else in mind? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
        • One of them is a measurement harddisks and RAM of a computer while the other one is a measurement for CPU/GPUs. The way they are related is that both are measures of computer performance. If you want to capture that information the straightforward way would be to create an item called "measure of computer performance" and use it as the class for both of those items. If you see another relationship between the two that isn't about how both are measures of computer perfomance saying that they have a relationship with each other isn't helpful when the relationship isn't specified. ChristianKl❫ 09:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I really don't follow this "instead of doing the work the item actually needs" argument. That's a very subjective measure, and in this case my first reaction was not to do anything at all. Then any other editor who runs across this would have the same burden before any action could be taken. Why do we want to make life more difficult for our editors here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
            • @ArthurPSmith: I don't think "define the nature of the relationship between the two entities" as a requirement for adding a relationship between them a "very subjective measure". If people are generally encouraged to add statements about the fact that two items relate to each other without doing the work of thinking about how they are related that results in messy data.
If two people differ about modelling decisions specifity helps to have a productive discussions. Discussions about whether or not the heart is associated with the stomach seem much more subjective in nature and much more unproductive. ChristianKl❫ 09:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment We can also create a template to maintain associations on the discussion page. How could it appear on the main page of an element? -- Abc82 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually I like that idea - a "see also" template for items? Item discussion pages are underused, so I think this would be a good idea. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Agree discussions pages are underused but for Swedish Adminitrative parishes I would like to have something that can be used with SPARQL (see T201074 - Salgo60 (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We can also restrict the property to have no more then one statement for an element and use list values as qualifiers (Q23766486) when associations are many. Bots can gather multiples, uncover single element lists and remove empty as well as duplicates. -- Abc82 (talk) 07:56 19 September 2019 (UTC), 01:49 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose; too ripe for misuse or laziness, and encourages the proliferation of items (rather than properties) for super-specific types of relationship. More of the examples can be handled with existing properties:
  1. We Are the Champions / We Will Rock You (Q66008229) part of (P361) News of the World (Q309021)
  2. Reading (Q60578270) different from (P1889) Reading (Q7300456) / criterion used (P1013) border (Q133346)
If even the examples in the property proposal can be handled better with existing properties, without loss of information, then what can we expect this property to become in the wild? I like Abc82's idea of listing these vague "associations" on item talk, for later editors to handle properly. Swpb (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

busEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionbus used on computer hardware, mainly relevant for supercomputer nodes interconnect.
Representsbus (Q178048)
Data typeItem
Template parameter|bus= and |interconexión= at Ficha de hardware.
Domainsupercomputers
Example 1Pleiades (Q2442043) InfiniBand (Q922437)
Example 2Jaguar (Q40078) SP Switch (Q68248916)
Example 3ASCI Blue Mountain (Q3601244) HIPPI (Q5629677)
Example 4SGI Origin 2000 (Q2030733) Hypercube (Q28456370)
Planned useTo be used mainly in infoboxes

MotivationEdit

Once again, I'm proposing properties to be used for computer hardware. This is intended mainly for supercomputer node connectivity. A good name would be bus (Q178048), but "interconnect" is better for the purpose. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Could it be intended to be used in more common buses like PCI, PCI express, etc... ? --FabC (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, any kind of bus, but as I mentioned, mainly for Infiniband and such. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of active electronic terminals.Edit

   Under discussion
DescriptionMany electronic components and basic circuits are characterized by the (minimum) number of active electronic terminals. To make an electrical circuit, the minimum number of active electronic terminals are two. E.g. en:triode have three, en:diode has two, en:transistors typically has three; but also exist with four (en:tetrode transistor), en:resistor has two, en:octode has eight, en:Neon lamp has two.
RepresentsTerminal (Q182610)
Data typeQuantity
Allowed values2, 3, 4, ..., minimum 2, minimum 3,...
Example 1diode (Q11656) → 2
Example 2resistor (Q5321) → 2
Example 3transistor (Q5339) → minimum 3
Example 4octode (Q2639059) → 8
Example 5tunnel diode (Q176235) → 2
Example 6light-emitting diode (Q25504) → 2
Example 7lambda diode (Q1801327) → 2
Example 8Autotransformer (Q565668) → minimum 3
Example 9transformer (Q11658) → minimum 4
Example 10gyrator (Q677197) → 4
Example 11TRIAC (Q221499) → 3
Example 12Monolithic microwave integrated circuit (Q1945036) → minimum 3
Example 13transmission line (Q693004) → 4
Example 14relay (Q174053) → minimum 4
Example 15switch (Q5320) → minimum 3
Sourceen:Terminal (electronics) en:Electronic component Quote: "...Electronic components have a number of electrical terminals..."
Planned useMany electronic components and basic circuits

MotivationEdit

Many electronic components and basic circuits are characterized by the (minimum) number of active electronic terminals. To make an electrical circuit, the minimum number of active electronic terminals are two. This is a fundamental property of basic electronic components. User:Glenn 2019-08-18T05:08:44

DiscussionEdit

Main deityEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe main deity of a certain worship place.
Representsdeity (Q178885)
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1Da Shi Ye Temple (Q10934697)Ulkāmukha Pretarāja (Q6338335)
Example 2mosque (Q32815)Allah (Q234801)
Example 3Dajia Jenn Lann Temple (Q10936936)Mazu (Q418226)
Example 4Pashupatinath Temple (Q380384)Shiva (Q11378)

MotivationEdit

Almost the most important property of religious place. Koala0090 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support Good idea (I added an example and changed diety to deity), however a mosque is not a certain worship place but a subclass of religious buildings Germartin1 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Germartin1: Thanks for your correction and opinion, how about change "worship place" into "religious place" in description? ---Koala0090 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Koala0090: I was referring to the word "certain" and I think it makes to sense to only allow instances of places. Further, I think the property makes mostly sense to Hindu/Buddhist temples, as other religions only have one god. What about a "St. Paul's Church", is the deity Jesus Christ or St. Paul, or should we only use the property "named after". However I'm not really religious so don't count on my word. So let's wait for more feedback Germartin1 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Keep using dedicated to (P825). Thierry Caro (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Thierry Caro: I hope that you have acknowledged that in polytheism countries like Taiwan or India, there can be multiple deities in a single temple. The property dedicated to (P825) couldn't offer us effective information about the main deity of the certain religious place. ---Koala0090 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
      One may use a object has role (P3831) qualifier for the main one. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Nomen ad hoc Tris T7 TT me  Notified participants of WikiProject Religions. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC).

  •   Oppose Use dedicated to (P825) with preferred rank, plus object has role (P3831) qualifier if desired. Jheald (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I could be persuaded, but I'm not seeing a good argument that this can't be done with existing properties. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jheald. --Tinker Bell 20:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportFood idea, espacially for countries of polytheism like Taiwan, Japan with Buddism and Taoism. Someone has concerns about it should read Religious of Taiwan for the difference between Christian World.Supaplex (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Keep using dedicated to (P825) (with object has role (P3831) qualifier), if it can be applied multiple time to religious objects (there is a discussion on the dedicated to (P825) page about that). — nojhan () 17:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


Once decided, do not forget to update Wikidata:WikiProject Religions. — nojhan () 17:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

religion or world viewEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionreligious or world view affiliation of a person, organization or religious building
Representsreligion or world view (Q71966963)
Data typeItem
Domainitem (persons, corporate bodies), e.g. Hans Modrow (Q57241)
Allowed valuesitem (persons, corporate bodies
Example 1Bertrand Russell (Q33760)atheism (Q7066)
Example 2David Malet Armstrong (Q1173590)naturalism (Q56000)
Example 3William Stewart Ross (Q2580659)agnosticism (Q288928)
Example 4Leo von Caprivi (Q10873)Catholicism (Q1841)
Example 5Rudolf Steiner (Q78484)anthroposophy (Q184719)
Planned useI would like to use this property in a to-be-built linked-data contemporary-history dataset held by a German research centre.
See alsopolitical ideology (P1142), religion (P140)

MotivationEdit

Properties religion (P140) and political ideology (P1142) do not intersect nor overlap. Yet I suggest to create the property "religion or world view" that would incorporate both of them in a consistent way. This property would like to describe the religious or ideological affiliation in a more comprehensive way than the afore-mentioned properties do. The to-be-created property wishes first of all to express the German fixed expression "Religionszugehörigkeit oder Weltanschauung", which has a broad use and a high frequence in German-speaking countries, and for which the property religion (P140) is not equivalent. Yet the use of the property "religion or world view" would be helpful for every linguistico-cultural context in order to describe the affiliation of an individual, may he be catholic, atheist, agnostic or polytheist.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by F.Gelati (talk • contribs).

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support if P140 and P1142, became redundant, are then deleted.   Oppose otherwise. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC).
  • Deleting Property:P140 and Property:P1142 is in my understanding premature. P140 is more appropriate e.g. when describing places of worship, because a marginal number of them are agnostic or atheist. P1142 is based on the clearly-defined same-name class Q12909644 and I would not consider it redundant. In my view, all three of them can coexist. User:F.Gelati
  • I'd like to see some more examples (perhaps you have some from German-speaking countries?) where this property would be required and the existing properties would not be sufficient. Your examples so far don't, I think, meet that standard. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As an example, The German Biography displays personalities' confession: for atheists, e.g. E.Krenz or E.Honecker, the field bears a "/", which is not exhaustive. This database displays religious confessions only but no world view. Creating the property "religion or world view" would allow to solve this disparity. Alternatively, a property from World view could be created, for the relation between religion and world view is debated: see World view. --F.Gelati (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Antroposophy is described in English Wikipedia as philosophy, and Nazism as ideology, whereas both of them may be defined as world views too, as their German-written pages do. This proofs in my understanding that the property "religion or world view" would offer an exhaustive alternative to such fragmented solutions. --F.Gelati (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm inclined to view all of these as one or another kind of religion, but if the people accustomed to using religion (P140) don't want to broaden it in this fashion, then a new property makes sense to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Seems redundant with the existing properties. --Yair rand (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yair rand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A natural parent of political ideology (P1142) and religion (P140) that supports values for which neither of those are appropriate. Suggest alias "philosophical position". Swpb (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CMF identifierEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionComisión para el Mercado Financiero business identifier
RepresentsComisión para el Mercado Financiero (Q47496083)
Data typeURL
Template parameter|Indentificador CMF= at Ficha de organización
Allowed valuesSee below
Example 1Administrador Financiero de Transantiago (Q5549126)RGEIN-99597320
Example 2Compañía Sudamericana de Vapores (Q183454)RVEMI-90160000
Example 3State Bank of Chile (Q5718188)MERCANTIL-300068742
Planned useIn the short term
Formatter URLhttp://www.cmfchile.cl/institucional/mercados/entidad.php?mercado=O&grupo=&row=&vig=VI&control=svs&pestania=1&tipoentidad=RGEIN&rut=$1
Robot and gadget jobsYes

MotivaciónEdit

As part of my infobox improvements, I want to request this property, as identifier with URL, for chilean business/enterprises registered at the Comisión para el Mercado Financiero (Q47496083), and alternatively, the Mercantil website. As the URL varies according to the organization type, the integer value has a prefix to get the proper URL (including Mercantil as alternative).

The request, in details:

instance of (P31)
  Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637)   edit
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference


+ add value
Wikidata property example (P1855)
  Administrador Financiero de Transantiago (Q5549126)   edit
CMF identifier RGEIN-99597320
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
  Compañía Sudamericana de Vapores (Q183454)   edit
CMF identifier RVEMI-90160000
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
  State Bank of Chile (Q5718188)   edit
CMF identifier MERCANTIL-300068742
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference


+ add value
formatter URL (P1630)
  http://www.cmfchile.cl/institucional/mercados/entidad.php?mercado=O&grupo=&row=&vig=VI&control=svs&pestania=1&tipoentidad=RGEIN&rut=$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) RGEIN-.*
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
  http://www.cmfchile.cl/institucional/mercados/entidad.php?mercado=O&grupo=&row=&vig=VI&control=svs&pestania=1&tipoentidad=RVEMI&rut=$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) RVEMI-.*
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
  https://www.mercantil.com/ficha.aspx?meco_code=$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) MERCANTIL-.*
syntax clarification (P2916) Mercantil website (alternative)
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
  http://www.cmfchile.cl/institucional/mercados/entidad.php?mercado=O&grupo=&row=&vig=VI&control=svs&pestania=1&tipoentidad=RVEMI&rut=$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) .*
syntax clarification (P2916) Default expression
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference


+ add value
format as a regular expression (P1793)
  [A-Z]+-[0-9]{9}   edit
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference


+ add value

See also this thread at the Project chat for further discussion., in order to get the right regular expression. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: the specification you are proposing for the formatter URL is not supported by Wikidata. You can of course create these claims, but that will not generate the URLs you expect for a given identifier value. See this commentPintoch (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

IM channelEdit

MotivationEdit

Like e-mails (proposed standard track) and IRC (experimental), XMPP is a proposed internet standard. We have e-mail address and IRC channel properties that store respectively 811 and 452 IRC channels. Wikipedia has over 20 pages about XMPP topics and most of them could contain XMPP addresses in their infoboxes. In general, many projects use multi-user chat (Q1521783) to discuss and people share their public XMPP (Q188951) addresses, so it seems appropriate to me to have properties that expose this kind of data, like we already do with similar address IDs.
Ogoorcs (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I think it could be time consuming to write the needed multiple syntax checks for all possible kind of user/group/channel/mailing list addresses a generic IM account would have in no time; look at all the subject item of this property (P1629) values.
In IM software one-to-one conversations and public/private group chats are usually considered different features; proof of that is that we have email address (Q1273217) (e-mail address (P968)) and Internet Relay Chat (Q73)(IRC channel (P1613)) but not a mailing list property.
My proposal aims to be compatible with the existing property structure, so we could have for group chats:
IRC channel (P1613) subject item of this property (P1629) Internet Relay Chat (Q73),
Internet Relay Chat (Q73) described by source (P1343) RFC 2810: Internet Relay Chat: Architecture (Q47286131)
Jabber channel subject item of this property (P1629) multi-user chat (Q1521783)
multi-user chat (Q1521783) described by source (P1343) XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat (Q74448104)
And for user addresses:
e-mail address (P968) subject item of this property (P1629) email address (Q1273217)
Jabber ID (Q2714181) described by source (P1343) RFC 5322: Internet Message Format (Q47485091),
Jabber address subject item of this property (P1629) Jabber ID (Q2714181)
Jabber ID (Q2714181) described by source (P1343) XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat (Q74448104).
Ogoorcs (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata as trusted search engine for IRC channels (and potentially any XMPP channel)
@Ogoorcs: Mmm, you're right, channels and individual accounts should be different properties, I didn't realized of that. But I think this property shouldn't be used only for XMPP, but any IM protocol:
Conversations (Q17122691) IM channel xmpp:conversations@conference.siacs.eu / protocol (P2700) XMPP (Q188951)
<a website> IM channel tg://resolve?domain=gdrivemovielink or t.me/gdrivemovielink / protocol (P2700) Telegram (Q15616276)
Same with a property for IM individual accounts. --Tinker Bell 00:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
But you would have to deal with multiple syntax filters and constraint and in any case protocol IDs will have to be described in detail now or later. After all one just need to create Qs with the sources and complete the above template. Also I do not know what others would think of this. I agree with reserve.
Ogoorcs (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
You can do this:
IM channel subject item of this property (P1629) chat room (Q574577)
IM account subject item of this property (P1629) <IM account address>
I'm following the model used by properties like source code repository (P1324), that groups similar services in one property, like Git (Q186055), GNU Bazaar (Q812656), Mercurial (Q476543) and Subversion (Q46794), instead of creating four properties like "git repository", "Bazaar repository", "Mercurial repository" and "Subversion repository". --Tinker Bell 06:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  Support You convinced me (but I still fear that someone could veto it on the basis that has a too broad domain).
Ogoorcs (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think someone could oppose for that. Anyway, in this case,   Support. --Tinker Bell 05:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Personally think that this property is not very demanding, usually the official website of the organization will provide relevant contact information, no need to re-create an property. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence:, Having addresses directly on Wikidata contributes to make it a more useful repository of data; that makes other software better, too. IRC channels have been made easily discoverable on Wikidata and I've come to really appreciate this feature, so I would like to have it extended to multi-user chat (Q1521783), too. Check the thumbnail to see what I am talking about.
Ogoorcs (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ogoorcs: I don't think this will be very helpful to the reader, and I think the proposal for this property is a bit out of scope because it is similar to the yellow page and not useful information for the reader. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence: We already store 811 people email addresses and 452 IRC channels; there are lots of Wikipedia articles about XMPP (Q188951) related topics so I do not find strange to have a property to store XMPP group chats addresses, it is the same as the github profile property, with the difference that Jabber chats are just a proposed internet standard since 2004, not a website identifier.
How do you respond to the fact that we already delivers for IRC channels and emails what I am trying to achieve here for Jabber chats?
I have tried to use Wikidata as yellow pages in these years with a fair amount of success and nothing wrong happened in the meantime. More data can only make the database more useful. Dozens of useful addresses were recorded and so would happen for those few dozen XMPP groups that will be linked here as users discover the property exists.
About the fact that you believe it would not useful to have such an id property, I literally showed you (now with subtitles) how it is more helpful to have contact information directly stored on Wikidata than not having them. I would like an answer to that.
Ogoorcs (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
WD:NOT indicates that it is out of scope to treat Wikidata as a yellow page at this stage. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence: the fact that Wikidata is not the Yellow pages can't deny the fact that one can already build them with it or use it as such efficiently; only someone who lives in an area with low data coverage or who does not know better would deny it at this point in time. In any case there are no Jabber group chats addresses nor opensource software projects into Yellow pages, so the comparison is not so quite accurate. Now to repeat myself, the aim of this property is to mention useful notable XMPP chats, as it has already been done with IRC channels and emails (which are an internet standard, too) in all these years without any problems. In any case the yellow pages argument is absurd because we won't have more than 100-200 values in a few years.
Ogoorcs (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics --Tinker Bell 01:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

type of age limitEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionqualifier on minimum age (P2899) to describe the type of age limit
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesTBC: prohibited / not recommended / accompanying adult required / accompanying adult recommended / parental guidence suggested
Example 1
< no minors under twelve (12) (Q23817740)     > minimum age (P2899)   < 12 year (Q577) >
type of age limit search < prohibited >
Example 2
< 12A certificate (Q23301855)     > minimum age (P2899)   < 12 year (Q577) >
type of age limit search < accompanying adult required >
Example 3
< Category II (Q23830577)     > minimum age (P2899)   < 12 year (Q577) >
type of age limit search < accompanying adult recommended >
Example 4
< Category III (Q21571488)     > minimum age (P2899)   < 12 year (Q577) >
type of age limit search < not recommended >

MotivationEdit

Currently we are missing a big part of the information when reporting minimum age, especially in case of media content ratings. This qualifier is aimed at filling that gap. – Máté (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

@Trade: Might be of interest to you. – Máté (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment According to Wikipedia the PEGI ratings are legally enforceable in the region of Vienna but no in the rest of Austria. How should we indicate this? --Trade (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great idea --Trade (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me why this is a qualifier. In all the example it could also be a normal property. ChristianKl❫ 12:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl:: I gave examples relating to content ratings as those are what I usually work with, but P2899 is used on other kinds of items as well. Also, take 7-9 PG (Q42012493). Here both limits (7 and 9 years) could be added with the proper qualifiers if this were to be created as a qualifier. Currently only 7 years is added to avoid confusion. – Máté (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay, I think it makes sense for dealing with such items.   Support ChristianKl❫ 08:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • How about "object has role"? --- Jura 16:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It might be a consequence of our respective native languages but I would not identify this reletionship as "role". Also, a specific property would make for easier constraints and queries. – Máté (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Museum of Family History IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionDatabase of entities found in the Museum of Family History
Representsno label (Q76180245)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Shmuel Atzmon (Q76178004) --> v8/yiddishpiel/atzmon-wircer-shmuel
Example 201
Example 3burstein-pesach
Sourcehttp://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/
Planned useYiddish Theater project
Formatter URLhttp://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/yt/$1.htm
Robot and gadget jobsNo

MotivationEdit

(Ingesting data related to Yiddish theater) Celloheidi (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What formatter URL are we expecting to use here? Two of the example URLs are http%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumoffamilyhistory.com%2Fyt%2Fv8%2Fyiddishpiel%2F01.htm and http%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumoffamilyhistory.com%2Fyt%2Flex%2FB%2Fburstein-pesach.htm. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

cacheEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionhardware component that stores data for computing
Representscache (Q165596)
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Allowed valuesone or multiple items that hold integer numbers
Allowed unitsByte or exponential values (kilobyte, megabyte, etc.)
Example 1AMD Phenom II X6 1090T (Q66481199)L1 cache (Q28972913): 8 x 64 KB (4-way set associative) + 8 x 32 KB (8-way set associative), L2 cache (Q12635161): 8 x 512 KB (16-way set associative exclusive caches), L3 cache (Q28972917): 6 MB (48-way set associative cachevalue, shared)[3]
Example 2AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X (Q56062710)L1 cache (Q28972913): 6 x 64 KB (2-way set associative instruction caches) + 6 x 64 KB (2-way set associative data caches), L2 cache (Q12635161): 6 x 512 KB (16-way set associative exclusive caches), L3 cache (Q28972917): 2 x 8 MB (16-way set associative)[4]
Example 3Pentium N3700 → L1 cache (Q28972913): 4 x 32 KB (8-way set associative) + 4 x 24 KB (6-way set associative), L2 cache (Q12635161): 2 x 1 MB (16-way set associative)[5]
Sourceen:Cache (computing)
Planned useCan be used for every object that has some form of cache

MotivationEdit

I'm working on AMD Phenom II X6 1090T (Q66481199) and want to include as much information has possible so that I can use it as template. The cache information is a very important part of a CPU.

There were already two property proposals that suggested the same, but ended in the middle of nowhere and were withdrawn afterall.

The structure would be like this (example below keep the parts that should be read together):

  • Cache: (property)
    • L1/2/3/4 cache (item)
      • L1/2/3/4 cache value
        • value information (applies to)

Information could also not only be added about the type and it's size, but also

  • cache latency
  • cache connection (how many lanes the caches uses to connect to the CPU/IO unit)
  • cache storage type (is the cache only responsible to hold a specific type of data like instructions or data)
  • cache exclusiveness (is the cache per CPU core, per CPU module (eg. AMD Bulldozer architecture) or is it shared for all)
  • cache area (how much area does the cache use. This could be interesting with AMDs chiplet design when maybe different types of cache sits on different chiplets in different manufacturing sizes)

Since there already were some comments on the last proposals I will try to answer them:

  • @GPSLeo:: Should we use multiple properties?: I don't care if there is one or more properties. I want to make it as flexible as possible so that the cache of rather exotic CPUs are much easiert to include when they are only items.
  • @Visite fortuitement prolongée:: We could use volatile random-access memory capacity (P2928) with qualifiers: Is all cache in every IT product volatile? The property seems more to be used in items where there is a fixed ammount of maximum RAM (eg. phones). This usecase is also the only listed case for as property example.
  • @TomT0m:: We could use has part (P527): It would be the same layout, but I do not want to jam all the cache into something that could also house all other values in the item. Some items use has parts of the class (P2670) (Q56062710#P2670) and uses (P2283) (Q51963118#P2283). Since there seems to be no clear wy of how to include such an information there are already multiple forms of it.


Example for AMD Phenom II X6 1090T (Q66481199):

  • L1 cache:
    • 6 x 64 KB
      • applies to associative instruction cache
      • connection 2-way
      • dispersion one per core
    • 6 x 64 KB
      • applies to associative data cache
      • connection 2-way
      • dispersion one per core
  • L2 cache:
    • 6 x 512 KB
      • applies to associative exclusive cache
      • connection 16-way
      • dispersion one per core
  • L3 cache:
    • 6 MB
      • applies to associative cache
      • connection 48-way
      • dispersion shared

DiscussionEdit

Ping to all missing: @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:, @Dhx1:, @GNUtoo:, @Amitie 10g:, @MisterSanderson:, @Tobias1984:, @Srittau:, @Jsamwrites:, @Tinker Bell:, @SixTwoEight:
Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics

If you have any idea or comment don't hesitate to post it! --D-Kuru (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I already proposed this, and found a workaround, without needing a property for Cache. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you already found a workaround please show me the example above in a real item --D-Kuru (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see any problem using has part (P527): has parts of the class (P2670) is intended to use with subclasses, not instances, so it doesn't apply here (although I think it can be confusing sometimes). And uses (P2283) is intended to use with objects that are not part of the subject, that's no the case here. --Tinker Bell 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Gazette of India notificationEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionnotification number and date, published in the Gazette of India
RepresentsThe Gazette of India (Q277213)
Data typeString
Domainmain statement for statute, legislation, proclamation, rule, implementing legislation, delegated legislation, statutory order; reference for effective date (P7588)
Allowed values^(G.S.R.|S.R.O.|S.O.)\s(\d)*(\s|\s\S((E)\S)\s)dated\s([1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])\s(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)\s\d{4}$
Example 1Constitution Order 20 (Q75430672) → S.R.O. 384 dated 11 August 1950
Example 2Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Q75232010)effective date (P7588) → S.O. 1044 (E) dated 28 February 2019
Example 3National Highways Act, 1956 → effective date (P7588) → S.R.O. 1180 (E) dated 4 April 1957
Example 4Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India (Q73000326)effective date (P7588) → G.S.R. 73 dated 14 January 1961
Example 5Ahmedabad-Vadodara Expressway (Q2043153)declaration (Q62662439) as National Expressway 1 → S.O. 92 (E) dated 13 March 1986
Sourcehttps://www.corporate-cases.com/2018/09/abbreviations-used-in-gazette-notifications.html
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)

MotivationEdit

All implementing and delegated legislations, issued by the Government of India, are published in the Gazette of India. Each notification is given a specific number and date, which is subsequently used in citations. The issuing Ministry/Department gives the series (G.S.R., S.O., S.R.O.) and issue date, and the Gazette office allots the number during publication. The issue date remains unaltered even if the notification is actually published a few days later. I am working on various Indian laws in Wikidata at present, and this identifier is required as main statement if the notification is an item (as for the components of Orders issued under the Constitution of India (Q75029410)) and as a reference if the notification is not an item but to be cited for effective date for a statutory legislation (like the components of list of amendments of the Constitution of India (Q3348321)). Hrishikes (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --- য় [t̪ɔnɔj] 03:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 轻语者 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Can someone show a source for the data? The "source" field in the proposal currently links to a definition, but I am curious if there is some dataset which already has some of these identifiers. Also, can you make a guess to complete the "number of ids" field? How many of these get posted every week, and about how many years has this system been used? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Source for the data:
  1. Example 1 → S.R.O. 384 dated 11 August 1950 → http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/1950/E-2351-1950-0026-109149.pdf
  2. Example 2 → S.O. 1044 (E) dated 28 February 2019 → http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/199021.pdf
  3. Example 3 → S.R.O. 1180 (E) dated 4 April 1957 → not uploaded in the Gazette site. For citation, see first footnote here. → http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1956-48.pdf
  4. Example 4 → G.S.R. 73 dated 14 January 1961 → http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/1961/E-1934-1961-0007-86609.pdf
  5. Example 5 → S.O. 92 (E) dated 13 March 1986 → http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/1986/E-0770-1986-0080-33904.pdf

As for how many postings, up to 11 December 2019, 6208 postings in the extraordinary gazette section of the Gazette of India site, for the year 2019. Thousands every year. Postings found online from 1922 onward. Hrishikes (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  •   Weak oppose It's a bit late, but may I suggest that items for the "General Statutory Rules", "Statutory Rules and Orders", and "Statutory Orders" be created and used with published in (P1433) (with qualifiers series ordinal (P1545) and point in time (P585) for the number and date)? I'm sure there are many people not terribly comfortable with the idea of storing Gregorian dates as strings given the existence of a date datatype supporting them. Mahir256 (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed partially with @Mahir256: on adding point in time (P585) for the notification number instead of Gregorian dates as strings. Also disagreed on adding series ordinal (P1545) as qualifier as the notification numbers are not always serial numbers per se. @Hrishikes: can add more input on this. For example, I suggest Constitution Order 20 (Q75430672) → S.R.O. 384 → point in time (P585) → 11 August 1950. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

part of terminologyEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionProperty indicating that the concept is part of a terminology
Representsterminology (Q1725664)
Data typeItem
Domainterminology (Q1725664)
Example 1adiabatic flow (Q59467285)physics terminology (Q76430006)
Example 2recruitment (Q3422540)biology terminology (Q77698139)
Example 3unity (Q55181023)philosophy terminology (Q77706469)

BegrundelseEdit

Hi, It was suggested to me by @Jheald: @Wikisaurus: to create this proposal to avoid polluting P:361 (part of) with terminologies as well as P31 with x term.

I find that many of our science items are very lacking in the number of statements and this property is designed to help round them up from petscan and enrich them further by adding P31, P279, P361, etc.

Further down the road this property might become superfluous when all items related to a particular science can easily be queried by their P31, P279, P361, etc...

With this property it will be easy to generate special terminologies from lexemes linked to Q-items with this property.

Another advantage of this is that we could create at tool that lets the user choose scientific area and get a terminology shown on the fly. Another advantage could be a variant of the Ordias text-to-lexemes but limited to a certain terminology say describe all the terms in this text that has a specific meaning in a certain area e.g. law or AI.--So9q (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Oppose Fundamental objection: wikidata is not a thesaurus (Q17152639). We are not a dictionary of terminology. We are a database of concepts as things in their own right. Our items and statements describe concepts and how they relate to each other, not terms. Keeping this distinction straight is very important to understanding the properties we have on our items. We need to do our very best to avoid confusion as to what our items are supposed to represent, and this property would cause massive confusion.
A problem we have, that I think may have motivated this proposal, is that we often have massive holes in our ontology, which makes it hard to describe what things actually are as things. Plus, doing so is often a decidedly non-trivial task. So we can have orphan items like adiabatic flow (Q59467285), which one might want to describe as subclass of (P279): "flow" / has quality (P1552) adiabatic process (Q182453), perhaps also with subclass of (P279) = adiabatic process (Q182453) as well. But at the moment this is hard, because we don't have a good item for "flow", and it may require quite a high level of understanding to define well in statements what a "flow" actually is. Indeed, a good definition might require the creation of even more items which are currently missing, making the process even longer and more onerous to complete before adiabatic flow (Q59467285) is properly meaningfully placed in our ontology. So it stays as it is at the moment, with essentially no identifying information on it -- no information to place even what area of knowledge it may relate to, no information even to identify how much infomation it is lacking; in short, not even enough information to tag it and identify it as being so deficient. And we have thousands, tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of items in just this state. What to do?
Thesauruses get round this problem by being less ambitious. Instead of trying to define through statements what a thing or concept actually is, they restrict themselves to merely trying to place it as a term within a wider area of terminology -- an easier job, which can be done more quickly, places the term and makes it discoverable, and which can then allow it to be added to or refined. In our context, marking that concept was located within a particular field of knowledge, but had no defining subclass of (P279) or instance of (P31) statements would effectively well tag the collection of such items within a particular knowledge area, allowing them to be readily retrieved as a particular group of items in that area needing improvement.
So I think I can understand the motivation for this property.
But I don't think the present proposal works, and I really don't like the idea of building a "terminology" tree. As I said at the top, Wikidata is not about terms and terminology. Its items stand for concepts.
So is there an alternative?
One useful property for items extracted from thesauruses is broader concept (P4900), applied as a qualifier on the external link statement, and pointing to the wikidata item for the nearest thing we can match to that is above the item we are describing in the hierarchy of that external source. (With additional qualifier sourcing circumstances (P1480) = hierarchical link is not direct (Q50095342) if the external child -> parent linkage is not single=step). I am interested to know what the proposer User:So9q thinks of this, because I think it may be able to deliver much of the functionality they are seeking, without us having to build a "terminology" tree. Another suggestion, at WD:Project Chat was to use studied by (P2579) to indicate the broad discipline that the concept is studied by. (Though we should perhaps look at whether P2579 is currently used in such a many-to-one way, to tag many concepts within a single discipline; or more often in a narrower way, ideally 1-to-1 to try to indicate the thing that the discipline studies). That needs to be checked; but again, this could be a way to avoid building up an artificial "terminology" tree, which is at variance to how Wikidata tries to model things.
Finally on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) may be worth mentioning, as a way to tag items that are (or should be) the targets of particular active interest, need, or improvement. (Also usable with qualifiers, to break a particular checklist of topics into particular sublists). This could be used, if particular items were to be marked as being in a particular area, and in need of particular improvement. Jheald (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Big thanks for the thorough comment and thinking out alternatives to this approach! Could you give an example of an item with broader concept (P4900) applied as a qualifier on the external link statement?
I welcome the studied by (P2579) approach but I'm unsure of how to explore the relationships you suggested.--So9q (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@So9q: I don't know if P4900 has been used much otherwise, but one area where it was added (about 18 months ago) was for clothing items, referenced against the 'fashion' part of the Getty AAT thesaurus. If you look at Property talk:P4900 there's a query there that finds WD subclass of (P279) relationships that don't correspond to the AAT hierarchy, and vice-versa. Also some further discussion under Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#AAT. Jheald (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment at Wikidata:WikiProject_Tennis/Lists/tennis, I started an experiment for terminology in the field. While P31/P279 are useful, I don't think it's worth creating the items if nothing else is added to them. BTW, sports topics have the advantage of all having the sports property.--- Jura 17:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jheald; in any case, you can use facet of (P1269), thus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I was searching a similar property for senses: ipso facto (L227969), sense 3 → part of terminology → legal terminology (Q76419834). I think this data shouldn't be stored on Items, they are for concepts. --Tinker Bell 21:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • While we have some items that are currently flagged as subclassing terminology, items should be about concepts and not about the names of those concepts (terminology). Lexemes are for names for concepts.
ipso facto (L227969), sense 3 → part of terminology → legal terminology (Q76419834) seems to be a more valid request, but we should first check for prior art and how this relationship is named elsewhere before making a property for that. ChristianKl❫ 17:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: I think it would be the best way for modelling the abbreviatures before the definition: e.g. xanthosis
(pathology) A yellowish discolouration of tissues undergoing degeneration.
(alchemy) Synonym of citrinitas
We could use the value medical terminology (Q1192539) in the first sense, and "alchemy terminology" in the second. --Tinker Bell 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. The label is not the referent. --Yair rand (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

verifiability of propertyEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionVerifiability of this property, one of "Verified", "Human verifiable", "no value"
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Allowed values"Verified", "Human verifiable", "no value"
Example 1stated in (P248) → "Verified"
Example 2imported from Wikimedia project (P143) → "Human verifiable"
Example 3retrieved (P813) → no value
Example 4reference URL (P854) → "Verified"
Planned useSourcing SPARQL query
Robot and gadget jobsno

MotivationEdit

We need a way to enforce that results from Wikidata query service are reliably sourced. Currently there is no simple way to require higher reliability standard in Wikidata query service than "wdt". And this means unsourced statements or statements imported by bots from Wikipedia will appear in query result. Simply requiring a source be provided doesn't work, because it can be imported from Wikimedia project (P143) Wikipedia (Q52). Requiring any sources other than imported from Wikimedia project (P143) doesn't work either, because imported from Wikimedia project (P143) can be accompanied by retrieved (P813), and retrieved (P813) triple will be matched by SPARQL software as a valid source. Not to mention we are starting to have new identicals of imported from Wikimedia project (P143), such as Wikimedia import URL (P4656) and inferred from (P3452).

Using this new property, we can write SPARQL query that require the data be properly sourced. Example:

SELECT ?item ?value ?reliablesource ?reference WHERE {
  ?item p:P31 [ps:P31 ?value;
               a wikibase:BestRank;
               prov:wasDerivedFrom [?reliablereference ?reference]].
  ?reliablesource <http://example.com/verifiability> <http://example.com/Verified>;
                  wikibase:reference ?reliablereference.
}

Alternatively, we can link the new items "Verified" or "Human verifiable" to properties using existing properties, for example instance of (P31) or has quality (P1552). But using a new property we can even define a hierarchy of reliability. For example if statement "Verified" next lower rank (P3729) "Human verifiable" exists, we can write the following SPARQL query to require the result having at least one source even if it is linked to Wikipedia (Q52), but do not include unsourced statements or bogus sources, for example a reference with only retrieved (P813):

SELECT ?item ?value ?reliablesource ?reference WHERE {
  ?item p:P31 [ps:P31 ?value;
               a wikibase:BestRank;
               prov:wasDerivedFrom [?reliablereference ?reference]].
  ?reliablesource <http://example.com/verifiability>/wdt:P3729* <http://example.com/HumanVerifiable>;
                  wikibase:reference ?reliablereference.
}

Midleading (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Data Model: There are multiple ways to model source reliability. We should decide which one we want to use.

  1. "Generic reliable source" > "Unreliable source", as proposed above.
  2. "Reliable source from trusted organizations and governments" > "Generic reliable source" > "Unreliable source". Defines a multi-level reliability hierarchy. More levels can be added if necessary.
  3. "Reliable source of science", "Reliable source of law", "Reliable source of medicine", "Reliable source of biblography", "Generic reliable source", "Unreliable source". Defines reliability by area.
  4. "Primary source", "Secondary source", "Tertiary source", "Generic reliable source", "Unreliable source".

Also we need to discuss the criterion used to define this property, is it about verifiability or is it about reliability? Midleading (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support, seems interesting. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC).
  •   Support I think it would be very useful. --Tinker Bell 20:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment doesn't reliability/verifiability attach to the source, not the way in which it is referenced (i.e. why is this a property to be attached to reference properties?) I can link just about anything I want with reference URL (P854), that doesn't mean it's either reliable or verifiable! (for example if the website domain has disappeared it can probably no longer be verified...) This doesn't feel like the right approach to modeling this. To identify types of reference properties it would probably be better to just subclass Wikidata property to indicate a source (Q18608359), no? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Using a subclass technically works, but the new items used to specify property verifiability are subclass of Wikimedia internal item (Q17442446), as they are specific to Wikidata. The properties themselves are subclass Wikidata property to indicate a source (Q18608359) but not indirect subclass of Wikimedia internal item (Q17442446). Also, this new property uses parent relationship next higher rank (P3730)next lower rank (P3729) which is different from subclass of (P279). This property doesn't indicate the results are indeed reliable, the statement can still be incorrect or vandalized, but the reference is listed in query result which you can verify by consulting sources. Without this property, you will be overwhelmed by huge list of values without means to verify.--Midleading (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Properties are specific to Wikidata too, I'm not sure what your point is there. Here's specifically what I'm suggesting: create new items like "Wikidata property to indicate a verified source", "Wikidata property to indicate a human-verifiable source" as subclasses of Wikidata property to indicate a source (Q18608359), and make stated in (P248) an instance of the first, imported from Wikimedia project (P143) an instance of the second, and leave retrieved (P813) as it is. You can relate the new items with next lower rank (P3729) etc. relationships if you like, and a modified version of your SPARQL will work the same way, but using the subclass relation instead of a new property. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think properties are specific to Wikidata because many of Wikidata property to indicate a source (Q18608359) have an external equivalent property, for example publication date (P577) = schema:datePublished . Making them an instance of Wikimedia internal item (Q17442446) is just like saying Universe (Q1) is instance of "Wikipedia article". I'm fine with using subclass instead of a new property, provided we maintain the ontology stable so that we aren't forced to use ugly/slow "?reliablesource wdt:P31/(wdt:P279|wdt:P3729)* wd:Q123456789" and/or VALUES statement in next years, and the new subclass can't be used to infer the properties are Wikimedia-only.--Midleading (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
They're already listed as instances of Wikidata property to indicate a source (Q18608359) so whether or not you consider them Wikimedia-only, making them instances of subclasses of that won't change anything in that respect. Also have many existing items that were created for purposes like this and should remain stable - for example all the property constraint-related items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Trade (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Depending on the source "stated in" can have different meanings. Sources for which we use "stated in" can be of very different quality. I do understand the desire to be able to query better but the approach that ArthurPSmith (talkcontribslogs) proposed seems to be more effective for that purpose and will take less toll on our query service, so I   Oppose the proposal as it stands. ChristianKl❫ 07:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If there is concensus to create the two new items and use instance of (P31) instead, can somebody create the two new items, link them to the examples given and close this property proposal?--Midleading (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

written at created atEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionlocation where a literary work was written, a music was created or a painting was created
Representslocation (Q17334923)
Data typeItem
Domainversion, edition, or translation (Q3331189) creative work (Q17537576)
Example 1Q55395524Mungpoo (Q16976226)
Example 2Q57433575Udayan (Q78333123)
Example 3Q55395705Gouripur House (Q78335380)
See alsofilming location (P915), recorded at (P483), location of creation (P1071) (currently used for paintings)

MotivationEdit

This property will describe the location, where an author wrote a poem or novel or story etc. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC) or in more general, a work was created, may be a painting, music etc. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

@Tinker Bell: - country of origin (P495) is to describe countries, it does not describe exact location of where the work was written. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bodhisattwa: That's why I suggested to broad the scope of P495: it can be renamed to "place of origin". --Tinker Bell 19:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support this is information that exists in a lot of wiki articles and often makes it's way into other properties. Cool to have a dedicated property for it. I would suggest broadening the scope to musical compositions as well though, something like "written or composed at" ? Moebeus (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- even though I do sometimes wonder at the increasing multiplication of location properties, and wonder whether "significant event" = "composition" / qualifier: "location" = <place> might generally be a more parsimonious approach. (And might similarly be a generic mechanism to prefer instead of several other location properties) -- because I do think it is better not to create properties unless we really need them. But maybe it is better to have one definite well-defined property like this, that is easy to use, rather than significant event (P793), which people might apply all sorts of values to, or not think to use at all. Note that location of creation (P1071) is also available. For items like illuminated manuscripts, it may not be clear which property should be preferred, so we should maybe consider that. Jheald (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  Comment - As per suggestions above and the Wikidata Telegram chat, I have changed the proposal to a more general term i.e. created at. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  Comment @Jheald: personally, I currently use location of creation (P1071) for tapestries and procelain and I don't like it. I'd rather reserve location of creation (P1071) for things that are made of components built elsewhere - like cell phones and automobiles - and use this new property for creative works like illuminated manuscripts and tapestries. The distinction could be "creative works" versus other types of human-made objects. - PKM (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Support Ainali (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

EAN-13Edit

   Withdrawn
DescriptionEAN-13 is a standard describing a barcode symbology and numbering system used in global trade to identify a specific retail product type.
RepresentsEAN-13 (Q3045807)
Data typeString
Domainproduct (Q2424752)
Allowed values[0-9]{13}
Example 1Lufsig (Q15297359) → 0627644194744
Example 2Robinson Crusoe: Adventures on the Cursed Island (Q39403247) → 5902560380064
Example 3AMD Ryzen 3 1200 (Q65582574) → 0730143308489
Example 4Q78640580 → 8714800007191
Planned useAdd the code to existing products and add easily new ones, thanks to the fact that we would have an unequivocal identifier.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoISBN-13 (P212), ISSN (P236)

MotivationEdit

European Article Number (Q357404) is the European standard for identifying a specific product that would be sold. Is the common barcode that everyone see on each item we buy. Books already have ISBN-13 (P212) that is a subset of EAN-13. I think that we could benefit a lot with this new property in order to catalogue well every kind of retail products. There will be a lot of synergies with all the information spread on many online markets (like Amazon, Ebay, but also many many local online stores). Moreover we can finally identify precisely an item, so for example in the food domain we can collect precise accurate information about ingredients and so on (joining the linked data cloud of projects like foodrepo.org and openfoodfacts.org) AlessioMela (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question @AlessioMela: Am I correct in thinking that every time there is a packaging revision this leads to a new EAN-13, to allow retailers and wholesalers to distinguish this year's version from last year's? If so, it might be only quite a narrow range of items that could be securely identified by only a single EAN-13. Is that something that should worry us? Jheald (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

network bandEdit

MotivaciónEdit

It's useful info about cellphones. --Tinker Bell 04:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Primhill.Computers
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
94rain
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics

  •   Support frequency (P2144) is a very generic term not suitable for those kind of devices, this is why exists specific properties, and Network band is a very relevant one. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for communication.--Arbnos (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

recipient (aliases: to, intended recipient, receiver, target, beneficiary, awardee)Edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionperson, group, or organization to which the given entity is directed, given, or sent
Represents
Data typeItem
Domainitems
Example 1pitch (Q1063937) recipient catcher (Q1050571)
Example 2Orteig Prize (Q1930819) recipient Charles Lindbergh (Q1618)
Example 3Zimmermann Telegram (Q154091) recipient Heinrich von Eckardt (Q1599502)
Example 4consumer complaint (Q1473099) recipient consumer organization (Q1329436)
Example 5Alaska Purchase (Q309029) instance of (P31) purchasing (Q1369832) / of (P642) Alaska (Q797) / recipient United States of America (Q30)
See alsoPossible parent properties:
  • participant (P710) or significant person (P3342) (these do not specify a role without adding a qualifier)
  • Possible sub-properties:

    Other similar properties:

    MotivationEdit

    To express a major thematic relation that is not well addressed by existing properties (as noted in the "See also" field). Swpb (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    •   Support David (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   CommentIs it the same as addressee (P1817)?--Midleading (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
      • addressee (P1817) at present only covers one of several use cases of the proposed property, but I would not be opposed to a radical expansion of its definition (really, turning it into the proposed property), rather than creating a new property, if folks like that idea. Swpb (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   Oppose Widen winner (P1346) instead. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC).
      • That makes no sense. This is for items that are transferred between parties. Winning an event may involve the transfer of a prize to the winner, but often does not. If we were to turn that property into this one, someone would immediately propose a new "winner" property exactly like the old one, and with good reason – these are not at all the same concept. If any property were appropriate to expand into this role, it would be addressee (P1817), certainly not winner (P1346). I gather from Wikidata:Property proposal/general law that your preference is to shoehorn new uses into existing properties whether they fit there or not. In both these cases, not. Swpb (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support but I would also support expanding the definition of addressee (P1817) if that's the consensus here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   Oppose I think all usecases are already covered --- Jura 10:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Please elaborate by expressing the example statements with existing properties. Without major expansion (e.g. of addressee (P1817) as discussed above), the existing properties simply do not work. Would you allow addressee (P1817) to be changed as described? Swpb (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Notably by award received (P166), addressee (P1817) you apparently don't want to see in the "see also" section. I know it makes it more difficult to argue the added value of the property. BTW: first time a proposer deleted valid content from a proposal. --- Jura 20:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • addressee (P1817) is discussed above; please comment accordingly: would you allow it to be radically expanded for this role? In it's current form, it is explicitly limited to letters and notes. And award received (P166) takes a completely different class as values, namely awards, not people who receive them – its mention was a non-sequitur and presumably an accident. And no, you don't get to edit my proposal; the discussion section is good enough for everyone else, and it will be good enough for you. Swpb (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Do you understand that you are proposing an inverse property for award received (P166)? --- Jura 20:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
              • 1) I am not, and 2) if I were, that wouldn't be an argument against. That's also a remarkably different argument from your initial one; I certainly hope your personal feelings towards me aren't the real factor here. Swpb (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                • You might want to have a look at the item used as value in the second sample above, notably the statements at Q1618#P166. --- Jura 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                  • And the four examples that have nothing to do with prizes? Covering a use case is not the same as being limited to that use case; which again, wouldn't be a problem anyway. Swpb (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                    • 2 are covered by addressee (P1817). The first by "participant" with object has role. This has the advantage that the pitcher doesn't get omitted. The last one seems to be an error. --- Jura 21:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                      • Ah, so 60% of the examples are not covered by addressee (P1817), unless we expand it! For the third time: are you for that? (Unsurprisingly, I don't find your takes on examples #1 and #5 compelling either, but at least they're valid opinions.) Swpb (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                        • Given that we have 453,654 items with award received (P166), it's likely that 95% of actual Wikidata uses are covered.
    BTW, small correction: 1 is covered by P1817. It's unclear how "consumer complaint" recipient "consumer organization" is covered even by this proposal.
    Maybe you could explain how the seller and the pitcher is meant to be included. --- Jura 21:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

    author  TomT0m / talk page Mbch331 (talk) Jobu0101 (talk) Tubezlob (🙋) Flycatchr Koxinga (talk) Fuzheado (talk) Mfchris84 (talk) Manu1400 (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

      Notified participants of WikiProject Award @GerardM:

    There is no use case for it. It increases bloat in Wikidata. For years now we have found that a user interface like Reasonator shows perfectly well all known instances of recipients of an award. It is safe to say that the best remedy for this perceived need is a user interface Consider bloat, there are awards with over 500 recipients.. Additionally you gain a major pain; synchronising and error checking on duplicate entries (they are the same information). Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

    external typeEdit

       Under discussion
    Description(qualifier only) main type of entry in external database (i.e. which separating those items into a limited number of broad categories, like P107 formerly did)
    Data typeItem
    Domainvarious
    Example 1Jehan Sadat (Q212190) GND ID (P227) 118604740 <external type> person (Q215627)
    Example 2Nature (Q180445) Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) 137773608 <external type> magazine (Q41298)
    Example 3(normal rank) Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) formatter URL (P1630) https://academic.microsoft.com/journal/$1 <external type> magazine (Q41298) (The current value will be perferred rank)
    Example 4Leonardo da Vinci (Q762) IMDb ID (P345) nm1827914 <external type> personal name (Q1071027)
    Robot and gadget jobsYes

    MotivationEdit

    For example Wikidata:Property_proposal/J-GLOBAL_ID contains multiple different types of entries using the same ID scheme. Microsoft Academic now uses a new URL scheme (though the old one still works currently); if the old scheme no longer work we will be able to migrate data to new properties easily using this qualifier.

    Questions: Should we create new items dedicated to the external types? GZWDer (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    Amino community IDEdit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionname of the Amino community associated to this subject
    RepresentsAmino community (Q80002220)
    Data typeItem
    DomainAmino (Q64221183)
    Example
    Sourcehttps://aminoapps.com/
    Number of IDs in sourcemore than 2.500.000
    Formatter URLhttps://aminoapps.com/c/$1/home/
    See alsosubreddit (P3984)

    --Trade (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    • Mmm, I don't like how subreddit (P3984) is used, because I tend to think they aren't identifiers per se, but works that can have their own item, and can link their topic using main subject (P921). Anyway,   Weak support. --Tinker Bell 23:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   Oppose no motivation was provided in the proposal. Putting a statement on millions of items has a cost, and given that I haven't heard of Amino before I doubt that cost is worth it. ChristianKl❫ 14:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: It's one of the most used mobile social media networking apps currently available. Definitely notable.

    type of external pageEdit

       Under discussion
    Description(qualifier only) type (read: status) of external page
    Data typeItem
    Example 1Second Crusade (Q51654) Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) event/Second-Crusade <type of external page> <Britannica directory page>
    Example 2MISSING
    Example 3MISSING

    MotivationEdit

    Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/BsivkoBot proposed to deprecate all links to Britannica directory pages. I propose to tag them with a new qualifier. See also Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/11#Encyclopædia_Britannica's_'empty-ish'_concepts_in_Mix'n'Match. GZWDer (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

      Support This seems like a good solution to the problem at hand. ChristianKl❫ 11:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

      Support but I still have the feeling that they simply added them for ad revenue. --SCIdude (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

    • Actually having such entries is good in some perspective, as 1. this still refers to some clear distinguishable entries and 2. this prevents duplicate and naming conflict, and the "stub" may be expanded to a full article. This is somewhat like a solution similar to mw:Extension:ArticlePlaceholder/Smart red links (cf phab:T123021). --GZWDer (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

      Support I had thoughts about kind of parameters (like qualifier) to resolve the problem, but I'm not so expert in Wikidata to make such initiative. Thanks to starter for the proposal. Bsivko (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

    •   Support. Sounds OK. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC).
    •   Comment Why not use object has role (P3831) for this? Unless you have some other cases where this specific qualifier would be helpful, I think a more generic solution is better. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: actually this example Britannica page also has an external type, which is "event".--GZWDer (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment why this new very specific property if you can just qualify it with object has role (P3831)? Multichill (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh wait, Arthur already said the same :-) So   Oppose unless someone can come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be done that way. Multichill (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I think you are right. I withdraw my support vote and also   Oppose. ChristianKl❫ 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It could be there are two identifiers of one scheme on the same item, e.g. one for the real name and another for a stage name. These would probably be differentiated by object has role (P3831)
        BTW not really convinced by the usecase. I don't see why we should link empty-ish pages in the first place. --- Jura 11:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

    literary formEdit

       Ready Create
    Descriptionstructure of a piece of writing
    Representsliterary form (Q4263830)
    Data typeItem
    Domainliterary work (Q7725634)
    Example 1Anna Karenina (Q147787)novel (Q8261)
    Example 2Romeo and Juliet (Q83186)play (Q25379)
    Example 3Ode to a Nightingale (Q3349126)ode (Q178985)

    MotivationEdit

    literary form (Q4263830) describes the structure of a written work, which is different from literary genre (Q223393). Unfortunately the current data model in Wikidata mixes both literary genre and form as one together, which is not correct. Adding this property into Wikidata will help correctly model bibliographic data. Aubrey
    Viswaprabha (talk)
    Micru
    Tpt
    EugeneZelenko
    User:Jarekt
    Maximilianklein (talk)
    Don-kun
    VIGNERON (talk)
    Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Alexander Doria (talk)
    Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    Kolja21
    arashtitan
    Jayanta Nath
    Yann (talk)
    John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    JakobVoss
    Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    Ravi (talk)
    Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    Accurimbono
    Mushroom
    PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    maxlath
    Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
    Epìdosis
    Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    Ivanhercaz | Discusión   15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
    User:Jc3s5h
    PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    User:Timmy_Finnegan
    Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    Andreasmperu
    MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Emeritus
    Ankry
    Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
    Elena moz
    Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Harshrathod50
     徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
    Louize5 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
    Viztor (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    RaymondYee (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Merrilee (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Kcoyle (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Tris T7 TT me
    Helmoony (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Naunc1
    Shooke (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    DarwIn (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    I am Davidzdh. 16:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Juandev (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
    Buccalon (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    MJLTalk 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Rosiestep (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    Dcflyer (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    Susanna Giaccai (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    Asaf Bartov (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    Msuicat (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    SilentSpike (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    TheFireBender (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    Jumtist (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    Irønie
    Openly
    DrLibraryCat (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    ShawnMichael100 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    Lmbarrier (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
      Notified participants of WikiProject Books -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

      Comment @Tinker Bell:, according to Wikidata:WikiProject Books, it has been decided to use literary work (Q7725634) for instance of (P31), not novels, ode etc. That is the data model we follow. For literary forms, it is now used in literary genre (Q223393), which is incorrect, hence this proposal for this property to correctly describe a literary work. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Bodhisattwa: How could you model the genre (P136) and the literary form (Q4263830) of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361)? --Tinker Bell 07:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Tinker Bell:, literary form (Q4263830) would be novel (Q8261) and genre (P136) would be fantasy literature (Q1057172), the first one is the structure of the work and the second one is about the content. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Bodhisattwa:   Support. --Tinker Bell 23:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    •   Neutral leaning toward   Support.   Comment it's complicated as some "type" are both genre and form (including novel (Q8261) and all the subclasses). How to determine which property to use in these edge cases? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

      Support   Comment I wonder if this couldn't be made to more generic? Films have the same issue, with Film>Feature Film etc. and Project Music certainly have a need for a property like this, with Album>Studio album, Live Album, Compilation album, Remix album, Concept album, etc. Several other properties are also shared between Sweet kate
    Galaktos
    Sjoerddebruin
    AmaryllisGardener
    Kosboot
    Shingyang-i
    Daniele.Brundu
    Airon90
    Atallcostsky
    Cvbncv
    LinardsLinardsLinards
    Infovarius
    Hannolans
    Ptolusque
    Gilrn
    Smallison
    Sight Contamination
    Moebeus
    Pigsonthewing
    Mathieudu68
    Harshrathod50
    Jc86035
    Buccalon
    Tris T7
    Olivettilly
    Rhudson
    Gesinaedits
    Coloradohusky
    CptViraj
    SilentSpike
      Notified participants of WikiProject Music and Project Books, would renaming this to "form/format of creative work" (or something more elegant than that) be possible? Moebeus (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

      Comment As Moebeus has stated, shouldn't this be more generic? In designing these properties one always has to think of items that stretch the boundaries. What about literary works that have no literary form?
    I think it's a good idea to make this more generic. --Tinker Bell 22:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Tentative   Support This helps solve a problem I've had to deal with in my work with Wikidata's literary data but some of the other concerns should at least be addressed. --NoInkling (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support, an important property for literature.--Arbnos (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support I agree with Moebeus that it should be more generic. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

    number of reviews or ratingsEdit

    @Jean-Frédéric:, what do you think? ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Mohammed Adam (T) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Cwf97 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Esteban16 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Peterchanws Brasig Le Yota de Mars YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Coloradohusky CptViraj BugWarp ʂɤɲ   Notified participants of WikiProject Video games

    Many review aggregators such as Metacritic and IGDB features separate scores for both critic reviews and user reviews or ratings (for example Postal 2 have a critics score of 50/100 based on 27 critics reviews and a user score of 8.0/10 based on 421 user reviews)

    Other websites such as Steam only features user reviews (Postal 2 currently have a user score of 95% (Overwhelming Positive) based on 36.922 user reviews)

    This qualifier would make it possible for people to see how many reviews the review score are based on --Trade (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

    •   Support David (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Trade: I tried to create this property but an automatic check failed: description qualifier on review score (P444) to state the number of critics reviews, user reviews or user ratings contains wiki markup. Please fix your proposal and your property will be created shortly. This is an automated message but do not hesitate to ping me if you need any help. − Pintoch (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pintoch: What's wrong?--Trade (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Trade: it just means you can't use wikicode such as {{P|444}} in property descriptions. − Pintoch (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Pintoch:, alrighty then i removed it. --Trade (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Pintoch:, would you please create it? --Trade (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Trade: If I understand your proposal correctly, the "item" datatype seems incorrect to me. − Pintoch (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

    number of reviews or ratingsEdit

    @Jean-Frédéric:, what do you think? ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Mohammed Adam (T) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Cwf97 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Esteban16 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Peterchanws Brasig Le Yota de Mars YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Coloradohusky CptViraj BugWarp ʂɤɲ   Notified participants of WikiProject Video games

    Many review aggregators such as Metacritic and IGDB features separate scores for both critic reviews and user reviews or ratings (for example Postal 2 have a critics score of 50/100 based on 27 critics reviews and a user score of 8.0/10 based on 421 user reviews)

    Other websites such as Steam only features user reviews (Postal 2 currently have a user score of 95% (Overwhelming Positive) based on 36.922 user reviews)

    This qualifier would make it possible for people to see how many reviews the review score are based on --Trade (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

    •   Support David (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Trade: I tried to create this property but an automatic check failed: description qualifier on review score (P444) to state the number of critics reviews, user reviews or user ratings contains wiki markup. Please fix your proposal and your property will be created shortly. This is an automated message but do not hesitate to ping me if you need any help. − Pintoch (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pintoch: What's wrong?--Trade (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Trade: it just means you can't use wikicode such as {{P|444}} in property descriptions. − Pintoch (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Pintoch:, alrighty then i removed it. --Trade (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Pintoch:, would you please create it? --Trade (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Trade: If I understand your proposal correctly, the "item" datatype seems incorrect to me. − Pintoch (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

    armament usedEdit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionarmament used to commit an act
    Representsweapon (Q728)
    Data typeItem
    Allowed valuesany P31/P279 of weapon (Q728)
    Example 1armament used → AGM-114 Hellfire (Q271930) as qualifier under manner of death (P1196) assassination (Q3882219)
    Example 2MISSING
    Example 3MISSING
    Planned useas qualifier for describing weapons used for assassinations and targeted killings see e.g. Qasem Soleimani (Q892014)
    See alsoarmament (P520), Wikidata:Property proposal/equipment used

    MotivationEdit

    Enables better modeling of targeted killings, equipment and weapon used.--So9q (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    • It doesn't fit. "equippable weapon item for the subject" this is wrong when we are trying to model that this armament was used to kill someone, not that someone was equipped with the armament when killed. See the example. manner of death (P1196) assassination (Q3882219) + qualifiers ordered by=donald trump + armament=hellfire missile is not clear. Who is equipped with the armament? Donald Trump? Armament is used as a main value to e.g. describe the weaponry a military aircraft be equipped with, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q816695.--So9q (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It seems clear enough to me. But maybe some others should weigh in on how this should be modeled... ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

    equipment usedEdit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionequipment used to archive a goal
    Representsequipment (Q16798631)
    Data typeItem
    Domainany object
    Allowed valuesany P31/P279 of object (Q488383)
    Example 1equipment used → MQ-9 Reaper (Q816695) as qualifier under manner of death (P1196) assassination (Q3882219)
    Example 2MISSING
    Example 3MISSING
    Planned useas qualifier for describing weapons used for assassinations and targeted killings see e.g. Qasem Soleimani (Q892014)
    See alsoarmament (P520), Wikidata:Property_proposal/armament_used

    MotivationEdit

    Enables better modeling of targeted killings, equipment and weapon used.--So9q (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    •   Support David (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment can’t we use uses (P2283) for this? - PKM (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

    ordered byEdit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionan act ordered by the subject, e.g. a military act
    Representshuman (Q5)
    Data typeItem
    Domainhuman (Q5)
    Allowed valuesany instance of (P31)human (Q5)
    Example 1cause of death:American airstrike + ordered by -> Donald Trump, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q892014
    Example 2MISSING
    Example 3MISSING
    See alsocommissioned by (P88) but that only fits for objects like paintings or buildings according to the description

    MotivationEdit

    Model military (and other) acts better by declaring who ordered them in the chain of command. --So9q (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    •   Support --Tinker Bell 19:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Would this be a qualifier, a main-value property, or both? Is the value intended to be the immediate source or the ultimate source of the order? How should this work when the order itself has an item? --Yair rand (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Good question! I only need it as a qualifier. Ultimate source. Quite often the military is wary of telling who ordered what and mostly it is the supreme general or in this case president that is mentioned. Maybe we could have "executed by" when it becomes known who pressed the button to fire the ordonance that eventually resulted in the kill? All the middle officers passing down the order are not relevant IMO. Middle officers can become relevant if they refuse the order e.g. but we should have another property for that "order refused by" perhaps.--So9q (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

    local to a language contextEdit

       Under discussion
    Representslanguage territory (Q8561610)
    Data typeItem
    Domainlanguage territory (Q8561610), group of territories where a language is spoken. This is the language context. A concept of a language context is related to both the territorial entities (political territorial entity political territorial entity (Q1048835) and country country (Q6256)) and the culture culture (Q11042).
    Allowed valuesany language Qitem.
    Example 1Naples (Q2634)Italian (Q652)
    Example 2pesto (Q9896)Italian (Q652)
    Example 3Juventus F.C. (Q1422)Italian (Q652)
    Example 4Vasco Rossi (Q17171)Italian (Q652)
    Example 5Pep Guardiola (Q164038)Catalan (Q7026)
    Example 6Sagrada Família (Q48435)Catalan (Q7026)
    Example 7Andorra la Vella (Q1863)Catalan (Q7026)
    Example 8crema catalana (Q842566)Catalan (Q7026)
    Example 9Inca civilization (Q3404008)Quechua (Q5218)
    Example 10Huascarán (Q200935)Quechua (Q5218)
    Example 11Quechuas (Q134936)Quechua (Q5218)
    Example 12Chavin de Huantar (Q732554)Quechua (Q5218)
    Planned usefor creating selections of prioritized content to bridge the gaps and help language editions reach a higher cultural diversity in their contents.
    See also

    MotivationEdit

    This property is required to identify the most important items that relate to the context where a language is spoken, whether it is composed of one country or region or several. These items can be located in places, but also on traditions, language, politics, agriculture, biographies, events, etc. They are a collection local to a language context (e.g. Branbury cake is local to the English context, but also Time Square or the comedian David Mitchell).

    We suggested this property because in order to bridge the content gaps between language editions it is essential to identify which articles are “local” (see Cultural Context Content or related papers[1][2]), as they tend to be more developed because of their most direct knowledge and access to sources. By identifying which articles are local to every language context it is possible to create lists of essential or vital articles that can be considered to guarantee a minimum of content cultural diversity.

    As said, in a language context there are all kinds of topics. According to the most recent results from the method proposed by the project Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory (WCDO), the extent of content that relates to a language context is around 25% of the articles in the largest 40 Wikipedias. In smaller languages, the percentage is much smaller as they have not devoted enough attention to represent their context. This is clearly a barrier to all the Wikipedia project achieve the sum of human knowledge.

    This property requires a language item. So, based on the data provided by the project WCDO we will create triplets to mark the articles (100 to 500) of that relate to the language context of the three hundred language editions. These are named Top CCC articles.

    ReferencesEdit

    1. Miquel-Ribé, M., & Laniado, D. (2018). Wikipedia Culture Gap: Quantifying Content Imbalances Across 40 Language Editions. Frontiers in Physics.
    2. Miquel-Ribé, M., & Laniado, D. (2019). Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Dataset: A Complete Cartography for 300 Language Editions. Proceedings of the 13th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. ICWSM. ACM. 2334-0770

    --Marcmiquel (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    @Marcmiquel: Isn't this use case taken care of now by the combination of location properties and language used (P2936) on the geographic items? For example Sagrada Família (Q48435) located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) ... Catalonia (Q5705) which has language used (P2936) Catalan (Q7026) (and others). Or are you trying to accomplish something else here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith, you are right that some are tackled with location and language properties. The creation of the dataset of articles that belong to a language context for each language edition uses these two properties (and many other aspects, as you can consult in the links/papers). The final selection of articles local to a language context is richer though - it includes items that range from traditions, people, places, language traits, etc. Having these collections is essential to later select the most relevant part of each language context, which should be prioritized in translation to other language editions. This is what the "Top CCC lists" is doing. They are algorithm-generated lists of 100-500 articles of the most essential articles of each language context that every other Wikipedia should have in order to ensure a minimum coverage of the existing Wikipedia cultural diversity. The purpose of this property is to be able to search the gaps using Wikidata queries. --Marcmiquel (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Marcmiquel: So it's not just location + language, but also some notion of importance? How would you prevent this property from automatically being applied to, say, every village in Italy, or every type of pasta, to add "Italian" as the context? Or would that be ok? If there's a significance criterion involved then I don't think the label quite matches what you are trying to do here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    It occurred to me that you are perhaps trying to duplicate this property: on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)? Would that existing property meet your needs? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: it is not just location + language, it's everything related to the context where the language is spoken. The notion of importance lies in just using the property for 100 or 500 items. However, the cultural context content of a language is more extense (in the Italian Wikipedia it is a 17.17% of its content, in the English a 44.91%, in the Catalan a 16.62%). With this property as presented, they could apply this property to the entire extent of cultural context content. I think it would be ok, but to mark the first 100 or 500 there should be another way. Or this property should have a criterion of importance in it. The on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) is good for specific projects, but here we are talking about a property with possible 300 values (languages). If we apply it to 100 items per language, then we have 30,000 items which are the "most relevant content for cultural diversity in Wikipedia". --Marcmiquel (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Wikidata properties do not work like in your (current) examples. Please replace "is part of the x language context" by "=>". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, I fixed it. --Marcmiquel (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: Thanks for your answer. Yes, a cultural context is richer than location and language, it's what they create in it the speakers of that language. Could you explain how do you imagine this new property? Isn't it the one I am suggesting? --Marcmiquel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I think that language used (P2936) should be used on Naples (Q2634) and that language used (P2936) might be subproperty of (P1647) of the newly created property. I don't think the newly created property should be used directly for Naples (Q2634). ChristianKl❫ 15:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry @ChristianKl:, I'm not sure I understood what you propose as scheme. Could you explain it a bit more? Likewise, could you please guide me a bit on how we should proceed. I'm new at Wikidata property proposal. Thanks. --Marcmiquel (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    Remove all the cases where the usecase is already covered by language used (P2936) or located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) from the list of examples. ChristianKl❫ 08:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    In general, people doing gap analysis with Wikidata tend to get the completeness of Wikidata or the ground truth wrong. I haven't gone through your papers though.
    1. Can you explain the reasoning (ideally with references) that links "Pesto" to Italian language (second sample above)?
    2. Why has Naples (Q2634) Italian (Q652), but not Neapolitan (Q33845), Latin or Ancient Greek (Q35497)?
    3. Why does the "domain" above mention territory, but the samples use other (people, food, etc.)?
    4. Please fill in the "description" field.
    5. I added a few related properties as "see also" above.
    If it's merely an idiosyncratic approach, I think one would want to go with on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008). --- Jura 09:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

    category for mapsEdit

       Ready Create
    DescriptionName of the Wikimedia Commons category specifically for maps or plans of this item
    Data typeItem
    Example 1Cambridge (Q350)Category:Maps of Cambridge (Q82327266)
    Example 2Tower of London (Q62378)Category:Tower of London plans (Q82328656)
    Example 3Berlin (Q64)Category:Maps of Berlin (Q15143387)
    SourceCommons maps category (P3722)
    Planned useIn items and Commons infoboxes
    Number of IDs in source15,717 (current usage of Commons maps category (P3722))
    Robot and gadget jobsI'll use Pi bot (talkcontribslogs) to migrate existing uses over
    See alsocategory for people born here (P1464), category for recipients of this award (P2517), category for the interior of the item (P7561) and category for ship name (P7782)

    MotivationEdit

    This property already exists as Commons maps category (P3722), but it was proposed and created as a string rather than an item property. Other properties like this one have been created as item properties, such as category for people born here (P1464), category for recipients of this award (P2517), category for the interior of the item (P7561) and category for ship name (P7782), and I think it would be good to migrate this property over, creating new category items as needed. As well as automatically updating when Commons categories are renamed (rather than requiring strings to be manually/bot-updated), it will also be useful to show metadata in the Commons categories through the infobox. I asked about this at Property_talk:P3722 back in September, with no opposition, hence this proposal. Pinging those previously involved in the this property proposal: @Jheald, Pigsonthewing, ChristianKl, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Igel B TyMaHe. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    Diccionari del cinema a Catalunya IDEdit

    MotivacióEdit

    Diccionari del cinema a Catalunya is a specialized encyclopaedia of Catalan cinema, with about 1.311 items of authors, films and other stuff. This work is edited by Grup Enciclopèdia Catalana (Q18696256) and it is a reliable source for Catalan cinematographic articles on Catalan wikipedia.--Docosong (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    deanEdit

       Under discussion

    MotivationEdit

    I want to add this information to schools and departments. Dataverse (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    •   Comment I think chairperson (P488) should be used for this as that is the same meaning, it is just the label that is different - so add a qualifier to specify the title is "dean". Otherwise we will end up with separate special properties for every label used by the head of an organization. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith Should we also eliminate the existing rector (P1075) and use chairperson (P488) instead? --Dataverse (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Maybe, I'm not familiar with the term "rector" myself. It's an old property anyway, and we have a few older ones like that that really aren't so useful now we've learned more how to structure data here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

    Wikidata propertyEdit

    provides dataEdit

    MotivationEdit

    This is not a mature proposal. Actually this information provided is resolver-dependent. Therefore we should rather have the information on individual resolvers. The following might be a better way to model the information:

    GZWDer (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    necessary property for classEdit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionall instances of this class necessarily have the property, even if the property might not be known to Wikidata
    Data typeProperty
    Domainitem
    Example 1human (Q5)date of birth (P569)
    Example 2architectural structure (Q811979)coordinate location (P625)
    Example 3geographic location (Q2221906)coordinate location (P625)
    See also

    This should be a subproperty of properties for this type (P1963).

    MotivationEdit

    I'm thinking about how to make our conception of instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) more clear and with being more clear also one uniform. It seems to me a key feature of the instance of relationship is that it implies that instances have certain properties. Every human was born at a specific point in time. Every architectural structure has a coordinate location.

    I derivate from the wording of "property for this type" here because I believe it's easier to understand Wikidata if we use class in relation to subclass and don't add the additional word type into our vocabulary to describe the entities in our data model. I would then also seek to rename into "property for this class". ChristianKl❫ 16:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

    DiscussionEdit

    • @Yair rand: It's similar to that distinction but not exactly. The term mandatory implies that it would be mandatory for each item to have a statement. Ontologically it's necessary to have a date of birth to be a human. At the same time that date of birth might be unknown to Wikidata and thus there will be items for people that don't have date of birth filled and that would be fine. ChristianKl❫ 19:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

    --Micru (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) TomT0m (talk) Genewiki123 (talk) Emw (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) —Ruud 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Emitraka (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Bovlb (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC) --Lechatpito (talk) --Andrawaag (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) --ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) --Cmungall Cmungall (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Cord Wiljes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC) DavRosen (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Fractaler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Andreasmperu Diana de la Iglesia Jsamwrites (talk) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) --Horcrux (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) Bamyers99 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Malore (talk) Wurstbruch (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Ettorerizza (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Ninokeys (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Buccalon (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Yair rand (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Tris T7 (talk) ElanHR (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC) linuxo Gq86 Gabrielaltay Liamjamesperritt (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC) ZI Jony Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Gaurav (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Meejies (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC) SilentSpike (talk) Tfrancart (talk) Luis.ramos.pst.ag TiagoLubiana (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


      Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology ChristianKl❫ 20:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

    There's no community consensus on what "has quality: requirement" means. It could plausibly mean "should", "must" or "necessity" (analog to this property). I believe that it's useful to well defined ways to map relations like this. ChristianKl❫ 08:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    1. How would these three be different (if they are).
    2. How would you indicate the meaning of "necessary" in a structured way on the property you propose? Would it be just in the label (i.e. unstructured)? --- Jura 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    1. When talking about policy I see the difference about must and should as the one defined in RFC2119. Should implies room for reasoned expections.
    If we have an entity A and an item about A named I(A) then necessity in the way I propose means that A has the property but I(A) might not have the property as the relevant information might not be known to Wikidata or otherwise publically known. ChristianKl❫ 14:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    So a concept that could get a different item and you would (or could) use on the proposed property? --- Jura 15:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)