Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

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

See also edit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Search if the property already exists.
  2. Search if the property has already been proposed.
  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. Read Wikidata:Creating a property proposal for guidelines you should follow when proposing your property.
  6. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below by editing the two templates at the top of the page to add proposal details.

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 creation of the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See property creation policy.

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 2023/12.

General edit

official list URL edit

   Under discussion
DescriptionURL of a website listing instances of the subject, maintained by the authority on the subject
Data typeURL
Example 1Unicode character (Q29654788)official list URL
Example 2Request for Comments (Q212971)official list URL
Example 3W3C Technical Report (Q115616700)official list URL
Example 4W3C Recommendation (Q2661442)official list URL
Example 5Discord server (Q63198389)official list URL

Motivation edit

The proposed property would be helpful for data consumers who want to find the official list of instances of a given data item. Furthermore the property could probably be used to compute the coverage of Wikidata of a given class via web scraping.

--Push-f (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

OKRB 011-2022 code edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionspecialty and qualification identifier according to OKRB 011-2022
RepresentsSpecialities and qualifications (OKRB 011-2022) (Q113355971)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainacademic discipline (Q11862829), academic major (Q4671286)
Allowed values\d-\d{2}-\d{4}-\d{2}(-\d{2})?
Example 1software engineering (Q80993) → 6-05-0612-01
Example 2composed musical work (Q207628) → 7-07-0215-02
Example 3endocrinology (Q162606) → 9-09-0911-65
Example 4veterinary medicine (Q170201) → 5-04-0841-01
Example 5foreign-language pedagogy (Q2696615) → 7-06-0231-01
Number of IDs in source1555
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes

Motivation edit

Adding a code field to link an academic discipline to the standardised one in the Republic of Belarus. Each academic discipline in Belarus has a standard code assigned by the Ministry of Education. The complete list of codes is available at the National Legal Internet Portal Aestrum (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

Wikidata property example for qualifiers edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionexample where this Wikidata property is used as qualifier; target item is one to which the qualifier points, qualify this statement with the Wikidata property that's described
Data typeItem
Example 1web interface software (P10627)Wikidata property example for qualifiersKexi (Q1537053)source code repository URL (P1324)
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
See alsoWikidata property example (P1855) Wikidata property example for media (P6685) Wikidata property example for forms (P5193) Wikidata property example for senses (P5977) Wikidata property example for properties (P2271) Wikidata property example for lexemes (P5192)

Motivation edit

The property examples of web interface software (P10627) couldn't be copied over because it's a qualifier on a property that doesn't point to an item. This property would allow to specify the property.

For properties that are both used as normal properties and as qualifier having a separate way to specify the examples for qualifiers will make it easier to see which examples are for what.

This would also make it easier to properly show examples for qualifiers on the property discussion page in the documentation box. ChristianKl❫ 21:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

  • Instead of one property we probably need six properties:
    1. Wikidata property example for qualifiers on statements on item
    2. Wikidata property example for qualifiers on statements on property
    3. Wikidata property example for qualifiers on statements on lexeme
    4. Wikidata property example for qualifiers on statements on form
    5. Wikidata property example for qualifiers on statements on sense
    6. Wikidata property example for qualifiers on statements on MediaInfo

If you think this is not pretty, you may want phab:T285157.--GZWDer (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikidata property example statement ID.--GZWDer (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have properties for those six. ChristianKl❫ 21:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikidata property example statement ID is a better idea Lectrician1 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

database contains records about edit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIndicate the types of items that the database has records about
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesQ8513
Example 1INKR Comics (Q115633593)database contains records aboutcomics (Q1004)
Example 2MyAnimeList (Q4044680)database contains records aboutmanga (Q8274)
Example 3Internet Movie Database (Q37312)database contains records aboutfilm (Q11424)
Planned useReplace instance of (P31)online database (Q7094076)of (P642)...
See alsoof (P642), main subject (P921)

Motivation edit

Property of (P642) is deprecated and main subject (P921) doesn't really make sense in terms of databases so this is a more specialized property. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

 Weak support Class items such as video game database (Q55341040) will also benefit from this. —Dexxor (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm mixed between expanding that class system and making specialized properties. I think ultimately it's easier to query a property, and it's much easier to add more values of this property than make new classes. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Undecided. (Not yet ready to support without some further working out). Looking at query for the properties most commonly used on items in the class online database (Q7094076), it seems main subject (P921) is not unknown, with about 1900 uses of of 10,000 instances, ie almost 20%. Looking deeper with query to see what these uses are, they do seem to make sense. So I'm not sure I buy into the blanket statement that main subject (P921) doesn't really make sense in terms of databases, so I think there's a case for thinking more deeply about what this new property would give us, as against more systematic and comprehensive use of main subject (P921).
Furthermore for eg an online art history database, one might have distinct tables for eg creators, works, places, movements -- there might be IDs and online pages for all of these. I think it is worth thinking more deeply about how this proposed property should be used in such cases, what sort of values it should take (or should it not take) - eg should values be generic classes such as human (Q5) or more detailed ones such as comics artist (Q715301) ?; and how ought it all to play with main subject (P921) ? Jheald (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was intending for it to be more specific. That was my main goal. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose in this form. I don’t see a need for this property to imply so many facets of the items that appear as subjects in statements. The part about a “database” and “records” can be inferred, should that be of interest, from whether the items in subject position are instance of (P31)online database (Q7094076) or instance of (P31)database (Q8513) or similar. This property would seem to be much more useful with the greatest generality possible while preserving the intended structure: The thing characterized by such a property contains elements (of whatever kind) that describe other things that are of a certain class. Generalized thusly, an appropriate label might be something like “describes items of class” or “described items have class”. (For example, an exhibition catalog might describe paintings.) With that in mind, a search for whether such a property already exists might be in order. If fruitless, a modified proposal would be worth considering. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment @Jheald: good point about main subject (P921). But I think it would take this proposal in a different direction than how I read the intention based on the examples given. Using main subject (P921) on a database would take as a statement object not a class of works, but something like a genre or field of art, discipline of scholarship or sport, etc.: Internet Movie Database (Q37312)main subject (P921)cinematography (Q590870)BlaueBlüte (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Oppose i don't see why main subject doesn't work BrokenSegue (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is that not all records in a database are really "main". For example, let's consider a music database that has really detailed information. Now let's say they store original concert hall data for music pieces in concerts. Now that database wants to make it searchable by concert hall, so now that database is storing concert hall records, but it wouldn't necessarily be a "main" subject. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

footnote edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionfor use in the references section of statements: to state which footnote of the source material supports the claim in question
Representsfootnote (Q25424643)
Data typestring or monolingual text-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Allowed valuesconceivably a constraint similar to the one on page numbers
Example 1
Normal rank knowledge equity (English)
named by David Allen Aaker
1 reference
DOI (P356) 10.2307/41165949
‘footnote’ (Pxxx)
(↑ proposed property)
(↑ example decimal value indicating referenced footnote within source <doi:10.2307/41165949>)
add reference

add value
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Sourceany source material used in references for statements
See alsovolume (P478), chapter (P792), page(s) (P304)
Wikidata projectWikiCite (Q21831105)

Motivation edit

We have properties like volume (P478), chapter (P792), page(s) (P304), and others that allow to make a reference on a statement more specific than the work (book, article, etc.) indicated by properties like stated in (P248), DOI (P356), ISBN-13 (P212)—i.e., to make a reference to an element within a work. What seems to be missing, however, is an analogous property to refer to individual footnotes within works.

To be discussed
  • How do multiple such properties interact when used in the same reference, e.g., chapter (P792) and ‘footnote’ (Pxxx)—would it be understood that the footnote number is relative to the chapter?
  • Should this property be more general so as to apply to endnotes (and maybe other kinds of notes) as well?

BlaueBlüte (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

  •  Comment if we have this for footnotes we should have it for endnotes also; however, if it's a single property then how would one distinguish between footnotes and endnotes (some works use both)? Also I've read a number of books where the footnote is indicated just by a symbol (like '*') that is unique only to the page, and the same symbol on a different page refers to a new footnote. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Use comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) instead. Midleading (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISCED field edit

Motivation edit

The ISCED field identifies the field or domain of study for an educational level according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) in a more detailed form. When this is approved, it allows for comparing the field a course belongs on the global scale. As demand for accurate and comprehensive data on educational systems increases, there is the need for a property that can capture the field or domain of study associated with each ISCED level. This property will allow for more granular and nuanced representations of educational programs, curricula, and qualifications, and will enable researchers, policymakers, and educators to better understand the distribution of fields of study at different educational levels in different countries and regions.

The property that would be used to map local fields of a particular course to the international field classification of the subject or the course. ISCED field is a way of categorizing educational programs based on the subject matter or discipline that they cover. The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) divides education into broad fields of study, such as humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering/technology. The ISCED field classification system is used to describe the content and purpose of educational programs and to facilitate international comparisons of educational systems. It can also help individuals make informed decisions about their educational and career paths based on their interests and goals. For example, if someone is interested in pursuing a career in medicine, they may want to look for educational programs in the health field. Similarly, if someone is interested in a career in computer science, they may want to look for educational programs in the field of information and communication technology. ISCED field classification can also be used to analyze educational trends and to identify areas where more resources and support may be needed to promote educational development and innovation.

ISCED field is a property that would be used to map local fields to the international field classification of the subject. Subjects and courses can be named differently from a country to another, that’s why we aim to represent the the academic major using both local field and ISCED field as shown below.

Runner1928 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC) —M@sssly 10:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Abreu Guilherme (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Netha --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Tris T7 TT me Tris T7 (talk) Vahurzpu (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Gnoeee (talk) --Epìdosis 17:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) --Alexmar983 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 99of9 Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Kind data (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Neha576 (talk) Keystone18Haseeb (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Notified participants of WikiProject Education please vote!Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

  • Such prop is obviously needed but I have some concerns
    • You show quailifier "code". Please confirm that don't plan to record such a qualifier. If you like, you can record this code in each individual ISCED entry, but not in incoming links
    • You show qualifier mapping relation type (P4390) and the examples show the need (narrow vs exact). However, this qualifier is intended to be used with external identifier props (check the examples on its page), not props that link to WD entries. @Jneubert, ArthurPSmith: can you comment?
      • Right, as said in the definition of the property it is intended for external identifiers. I would not recommend to use it between Wikidata items without a discussion and consensus about a change of the scope and use of the property (preferably on the property talk page or the project chat). --Jneubert (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Since you've gone to the trouble of adding all of ISCED as WD entries, you don't necessarily need a specific property. You could use some general "classification" property, and you can figure out it's the ISCED classification since each entry is instance of ISCED Field of Education and Training (Q113586463). But I would be ok with a specific property too --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Vladimir AlexievThank you so much for your comment. Your comments are very valuable especially with the suggestions given. The third comment is not clear us and we would be glad if you explain further or give us other examples. Also, the part "You could use some general "classification" property" projects that you have a property in mind that could help us achieve the same results and we would be glad if you could mention it. If you need any further explanation, we will be glad to meet you at an agreed time. Thanks again for taking time to review our request. Dnshitobu (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are several props that nearly match what you need, but are over-specified to apply only to some situations:
    • field of this occupation (P425), field of work (P101), field of usage (P9488), field of training (P8258)
    The last one matches best, so I think you can say:
    We can change the description of P8258 and add alias "field of study" to match your need perfectly.
    Once you populate it this way, you can find all your assignments with this query:
SELECT ?course ?courseLabel ?isced ?iscedLabel WHERE {
  ?course wdt:P8258 ?isced. # field of study
  ?isced wdt:P31 wd:Q113586463 # instance of: ISCED Field of Education and Training
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
Try it!
  • To reiterate: since you've added all of ISCED as WD entities, you don't need a special prop to link to these entities: you can use an existing one.
    hope to help! -- Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Vladimir Alexiev Thank you for your suggestion. We explored all those properties but the property constraints wouldn't allow us use it. Anyway, we will explore those options again. Dnshitobu (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After interactive discussion today:

  • mapping relation type (P4390) is not needed because all the links from curricula to ISCED are "narrower" and because P4390 is an allowed qualifier only for "external-ID" properties. You can get the parent (or all ancenstors) of a course classification using subclass of (P279):
SELECT ?co ?coLabel ?isced ?iscedLabel ?iscedParent ?iscedParentLabel WHERE {
  ?co wdt:P279 ?isced. # course/curriculum is classified with an ISCED field. Replace "subclass of" with "ISCED Field" when/if approved
  ?isced wdt:P31 wd:Q113586463. # instance of ISCED Field of Education and Training
  ?isced wdt:P279 ?iscedParent.
  ?iscedParent wdt:P31 wd:Q113586463.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
Try it!
@Vladimir AlexievThank you so much for your time and guidance. Dnshitobu (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

competency edit

This property was requested after extensive consultation with the Wikidata community and experts on ed tech, OER, global and national curriculum, education policy, and digitization. Over the two rounds of the consultation, we received input from 31 individuals representing various global perspectives and areas of expertise to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project.

DescriptionStates the competencies one needs to acquire after taking up a course or class or a lesson
Data typeItem
Domainproperty in education (Q8434)
Example 1Critical thinking (Q113465749)Science Curriculum for Basic 7 (Q113646657)
Normal rank Critical thinking (Q113465749)
0 references
add reference

add value
Example 2Mathematics Curriculum for Basic 7 (Q113556827)CompetencyCritical thinking (Q113465749); When a student finishes his/her studies in Mathematics Curriculum for Basic 7, s/he is suppose to have developed a competency called Critical thinking
Example 3English Language Curriculum for Basic 7 (Q115800033)CompetencyCreativity (Q113465748); When a student finishes his/her studies in English Language Curriculum for Basic 7, s/he is suppose to have developed a competency called Creativity
Planned useA reference to the expected competency. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.
Wikidata projectWikidata for Education

Motivation edit

After studying any course or programme, learners are expected to gain or acquire certain skills. Some of these skills include critical thinking,problem solving become critical thinkers, problem solvers, creators, innovators, good communicators, collaborators, digitally literate, and culturally and globally sensitive citizens. In the example above, competencies that learners are expected to acquire in a course such as journalism will be critical thinking (that is, improving their critical thinking skills). A student after studying a Socio-economic Development (Q113463655) course (Sub-Strand) should have acquired a problem solving competence (relative) and another student studying Family Life (Q113463652) is supposed to come out of that course (Sub-Strand) with Personal Development (Q113465751). Dnshitobu (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

  • @Andrews Lartey: You have proposed many properties recently but in none of them so far are the examples demonstrated properly. For this one, for example, you should find an existing Wikidata item (or propose a new one) that is the subject for each example - presumably it should be some sort of curriculum item since that is what you have been describing. With a clearer illustration it will be possible for others to evaluate your proposals, otherwise it is very unclear what you are trying to do here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for this feedback. I am working on it and I should be done with them soon. Your feedbacks are really helping me here. Andrews Lartey (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment the description for this should be more specific / clearer. This meaning of the term has nothing to do with competence (Q5156288) for example. --Middle river exports (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This has been worked on, you can take a look @Middle river exports Dnshitobu (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. I don't get this. It doesn't make sense to me. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Thierry Caro, have you checked the example we have provided at Test Wikidata (Q223773) for this property? In curriculum, a course teaches different competencies to students. When we studied Ghana's curriculum, we found different competencies that are part of the curriculum. Also, please let us know what more information you require, we are here to make improvement and also learn from you. SPatnaik (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Thierry Caro, I can understand the confusion with the generic example it had before, WiR for this project @Dnshitobu has recently added items that are relevant to the project. I have made some changes to the example, referring to Ghana's National curriculum for B7 Social Studies. I hope the examples are clear now. SPatnaik (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Thierry Caro I am checking up on you if the updated examples are clear for your understanding or if you still have new queries. Dnshitobu (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess it's clearer this way but I'm still not convinced by the overall idea behind the proposal. I doubt, for instance, that there is much meaning in having items such as Creativity (Q113465748). They sound made up out of thin air. I maintain my vote against. Thierry Caro (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Thierry CaroYou can read more from the Mathematics B1-B3 curriculum of Ghana on page VI and VII. You can get its correlation with the other aspect of the curriculum on page 2 a more detailed approach on page 24, on the third column titled Core Competencies/Subject Specific Practices. Please let us know if you still have challenges Dnshitobu (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Could has effect (P1542) be used instead? Abbe98 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment If I understand the proposed property correctly, then I think that "learning outcome" would be a better name. The name "competency" could be mistaken to mean the level of competency (e.g., "highly competent") instead of the skills or knowledge that are expected to be acquired during a course of study. Also, what are the classes of items does it apply to? (Classes? Curriculums? Or something else?) Would this property be used to indicate that a person is competent in a particular skill? — The Erinaceous One 🦔 04:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @The-erinaceous-one Thank you for the comments. You have raised genuine concerns but this property is will be used to measure a skill(s) a student gets or is expected to get after studying a particular concept or unit in a curriculum. For example, a student who sits for a lesson for Family Life (Q113463652) is expected to develop Personal Development (Q113465751) according to the Ghanaian curriculum. However, each curriculum comes with a unique set of skills henceforth known as Competency to be achieved for each subject. The term "learning outcome" might even be mistaken as learning objectives or learning goals.
    The Competency property will be used for classes, curriculums and units in a curriculum Dnshitobu (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is the proposed property different from learning objectives? They sound the same to me, but "learning objectives" (or "learning goals") would be a better a better label because (1) it indicates that a given item is the desired outcome of a class than a guaranteed outcome and (2) it is less prone to being misunderstood. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Erinaceous One 🦔 We have made plans to change the name to learning outcomes. Would it be appropriate to rename this property as such or we have to create a new request? You recommendation is really valuable here. Dnshitobu (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Weak oppose because the intent is good but the name and definition don't seem right. A competency is a thing, it can be defined, say in a curriculum or a competency framework for a profession. A course can then teach that competency, an exam can assess that competency, a job or a qualification may require that competency. So, how does a curriculum relate to a competency? The current model suggests that the curriculum defines a course that teaches the competency; however, I think it might be just as valid to say that the curriculum defines the competency. --Philbarker (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment We appreciate the efforts and the time you spent reviewing the proposed properties. We are reviewing all your comments and some collated pieces of advice and would update the proposals soon and reply accordingly to all question. Dnshitobu (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment @Abbe98: I think has effect (P1542) doesn’t full capture the semantics of what this proposed property is meant to express: That the ‘effect’ is specifically in the ‘attendant’/‘patient’ of the subject (the course or program) of statements using this proposed property. However, we might consider making this proposed property subproperty of (P1647) of has effect (P1542). ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Looking at this and Dnshitobu (talkcontribslogs)’s other recent property proposals together with the “WD4E Data Model 2022”, a couple issues stand out to me in particular:
    ➊ The terminology may be too closely aligned with the Ghanaian style guide for curricula to generalize as well as the proposed generic labels for the properties suggest (e.g., “competency”). There is nothing wrong with modeling Ghanaian curricula in particular, but if properties are to be created to support that effort specifically (as suggested by the fact that similar labels don’t seem to fit), they should be labeled as such.
    ➋ The terminology in the “WD4E Data Model 2022” and in this and related property proposals seems unclear and inconsistent. Terms are sometimes used both as labels for classes and for attributes (properties) of those same classes (e.g., “local education level” here). This makes it difficult to discern the intended semantics.
    ➌ Many of the examples given in this and related property proposals seem inconsistent with the intended data model. This may be because the contributors working on the proposals tried to find existing items with which to showcase the proposed properties, but those items may not quite be what the proposed properties would actually be used with eventually. If that is the case I would suggest creating new items or inventing mock labels for the property-use examples as needed.
    ➍ The direction of the intended main classification relations in the “WD4E Data Model 2022” is counter the usual Wikidata convention: in Wikidata, it is typically the more specific items that point to the less specific items: something like Douglas Adams (Q42)part of (P361)humanity (Q1156970), but not humanity (Q1156970)has part(s) (P527)Douglas Adams (Q42). Following this convention may make the data model both more palatable to reviewing experienced Wikidatans and easier to use in the long run.
    BlaueBlüte (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BlaueBlüte Thank you for the detailed observations. We will discuss it and better up going forward. Dnshitobu (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strong oppose this makes no sense. I feel like I'm going mad... BrokenSegue (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lectrician1, @BrokenSegue, @ChristianKl, @ArthurPSmith We are very happy you have spent sometime reviewing this property request, a few changes have been made to it and we would be happy if you could take a look, comment or recommend on best practices so that we get this done and we all can move on. Thank you for your support all this while. As for the Strong Support comments, we made a presentation at a forum about how we are making efforts to digitize curriculum data on Wikidata and asked for their support in reviewing the proposal and for whatever reasons best known to them (We believe it was out of excitement), they came to give all our proposals strong support. Dnshitobu (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Oppose One of the big problems is that you only think about your single use case and not about Wikidata as a whole when you make those property proposals. It sounds like you decided on a data model with people without Wikidata experience.
    Going forward, it might be best to either sit down and create a data model together with experienced Wikidata editors go to just use your own Wikibase instance if you want your own custom data model. ChristianKl❫ 12:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention and thank you for spending time reviewing our proposals. This is a pilot project and we are looking at how Wikidata can handle school curricula from different countries by its linked data structure. I apologize for my mistake in the last update. In fact, I was supposed to do it off Wikidata, ask for validation from my team before publishing it here. That was my bad and I don’t think this would happen again. In the interim, we have moved the property to draft to fix the necessary issues with the property and once we are done with all relevant changes, we will keep you posted on that. I appreciate your feedback and will take it into account going forward.
    Please have look at the following queries:
    Five uploaded curricula data
    Science Curriculum data on Listeria
    Social Studies curriculum for Basic 7 Dnshitobu (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Example 1 makes the opposite relationship that examples 2 and 3 do. Which way are you proposing? Please fix the examples. Lectrician1 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lectrician1 Thank you sir, It will be fixed Dnshitobu (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

field of this item edit

Motivation edit

This property is proposed as an alternative to the proposed field of this award property. A generic property is needed to describe the relationship between an item and the field, domain or activity that is associated with it, even in the absence of a granular class item that might otherwise provide this association. This field property would make it possible to describe instances of a class or class items with high precision without having to create highly elaborate class hierarchies mimicking existing field, discipline or activity typologies. For example, at present, there is no class item describing the concept of "dance award". With the proposed property, such a class item would not be needed. Instances of awards in the field of dance could simply be instantiated as instance of (P31)award (Q618779) and then further described with the proposed "field of this item" property. The examples above are all related to awards (because that's the information gap that I'm currently trying to fill), but the property may also prove useful to describe other things. Please don't hesitate to provide additional examples.

This generic "field" property could be a superclass of field of work (P101) and field of this occupation (P425). A constraint would be needed to prevent its use on instances of creative work (Q17537576), where main subject (P921) should be used instead.

@ChristianKl, :@Vladimir Alexiev, :@Peuc - Please help flesh out this proposal and comment it. Fjjulien (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

WikiProject Ontology has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

  •  Support This is a good alternative to address the original concern outlined by @fjjulien. We are still able to indicate a relatonship between an award and the field it is connected to but the language is not super specific. I also echo the objections @fjjulien raised with respect to merging P101 and P435. Bridgetannmac (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support This seems reasonable to me (though we should add some examples outside of awards). ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm in favor of merging field of work (P101) and field of this occupation (P425) and generalizing them to apply to any item.
    • If this proposal is accepted, the name must be changed. "Field of work" and "field of occupation" are clear (and mean the same). "Field" alone is unclear: to a physicist it would mean something completely different.
    • If on the other hand people are in favor of merging, I'll make a formal merging request (if someone could point me where that's done, I've only done it once and forgot) --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fjjulien: raised a couple of objections to merging (everyone, please raise more!)

  • I've had this discussion with a few wikimedians and I generally found opposition, hence this proposal. See this discussion thread.
    • You don't provide a very specific link... Notify the participants in that discussion and let these people raise their own objections
  • When properties are too generic, we run the risks of inconsistent use and loss of conceptual clarity
    • I don't think "Field of work" = "Field of occupation" is generic. It means "a domain of human endeavour" and is quite specific. Nor do I think that applying it to multiple kinds of entities makes it generic. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vladimir Alexiev
  • Regarding previous discussions: I provided a more specific link (sorry for forgetting to include the anchor). Participants in this thread were notified a week ago, along with fellow participants in the WikiProject Performing arts. I was unable to retrieve meeting minutes where this topic was discussed.
  • Regarding properties that are too generic: If the accepted values are "a domain of human endeavour", then this provides a certain degree of specificity. However, value-type constraints are often gradually expanded until the property loses its specificity. Fjjulien (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vladimir Alexiev Would you also recommend that we merge industry (P452) with "field of work" and "field of this occupation"? Fjjulien (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No because:
  • "industry" and "economic sector" are bigger divisions of human endeavour. Eg you'd say "IBM works in industry Software" but you'd say for a person that he's a software engineer, java developer, business analysti, DB admin etc etc
  • some occupations (eg "mathematician") don't have corresponding industries. This profession can fall into sector "research" or "R&D", but 1. That's more general, 2. Mathematicians can work in quite specific industries, eg cryptography, blockchain, etc. Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose This proposed property, as it is currently name will be a constant source of confusion. We could, I suppose, call it "domain" (which might be confused with definition domain (P1568), but I think that is not a serious concern). I think though, that simply having the following two distinct properties woudld create the clearest, most maintainable organization of data:

The Erinaceous One 🦔

 Support I agree that this is a good solution for the concerns raised by @ChristianKl:. Adding this property while keeping field of work (P101) for people and organisations without merging it with other properties also makes querying the data more straightforward and transparent in my opinion. Beireke1 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment You write that it should not be used on instances of creative work (Q17537576) but I think this could be useful to indicate the academic discipline for academic papers (or monographies). The discipline in which a paper was written is usually not the central topic - e.g. a paper written in the field of musicology (Q164204) is usually not about musicology (Q164204). On the other hand, there may exist papers about musicology (Q164204) in the field of social science (Q34749) (e.g. about practices, values, communication strategies, hierarchies, etc.). If you have both musicology (Q164204) and social science (Q34749) as a central topic you don't capture this (does it mean that it is about both, musicology (Q164204) and social science (Q34749)? About one of them written in the field of the other? Or about none of them, a cross-disciplinary study of a third domain, e.g. folk music in the Carpathians?).- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valentina.Anitnelav Thank you. You are right : the field of a publication is not the same thing as its subject headings. I'm curious to know how librarians handle these two distinct matters. Smallison: any thoughts? Fjjulien (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

award declined edit

Motivation edit

nominated for (P1411) is kind of similar but not identical.
nomination declined (Q26252351) exists but it is an item and does not seem to be used at all (Query). Sovxx (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As written by Quiddity on award received (P166) talk page :


Is there any good way to indicate that someone declined or turned down or refused an award?

For example: I was looking at David Bowie (Q5383) and it currently says that he was awarded a "Commander of the Order of the British Empire" and "Order of the British Empire", when in fact he declined those awards per w:en:David Bowie#Awards and recognition and w:en:List of people who have declined a British honour.

The closest I can see is reason for deprecated rank (P2241), but I'm not sure if that is appropriate.

Additionally, I think one of the end-goals would be to remove those awards from displaying at external locations such as and I'm not sure if P2241 would have that effect?


Discussion edit

non-acronym, non-initialism abbreviation edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionshortened form of word or phrase (i. e. shortened words in phrase), made by leaving some of letters and omitting others
Representsabbreviation (Q102786)
Data typeMonolingual text
DomainAutomation of language templates like Template:Lang-en (Q6173452) and wikidata driven templates that use abbreviated forms of words (like vol., no. (issue), etc).
Allowed valuesabbreviated text
Example 1English (Q1860) → Eng. (English), англ. (Russian)
Example 2volume (Q1238720) → vol. (English), т. (Russian)
Example 3issue (Q28869365) → no. (English), вып. (Russian)
Example 4Geneva (Q71) → Ж. (Russian)
Example 5New York City (Q60) → N.Y. (English)
Example 6east-southeast/ESE/E.S.E. (L750594) → E.S.E. (English)
SourceGOST R 7.0.12-2011 (in Russian), GOST 7.11-2004 (in Russian)
Planned usefor bibliographic entries in Wikipedia articles by Lua modules that format sources
See alsoshort name (P1813)

Motivation edit

I need it to abbreviate some words in different languages in the Wikidata driven language independent lua module that I created. The module fetches information about information source from Wikidata by its QID (or QIDS) and displays it according to the selected profile (currently only GOST is supported). I've tried to use short name, acronym, initialism, or abbreviation not unique (Q64699537) property, but my edits were reverted since it's a short form of a word or phrase but not an abbreviation. "English language" according to this property is "english" (Russian: английский) but not "eng." (Russian: англ.). Without the new property I cannot make my lua modules for citing purposes fully Wikidata driven. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

  • This should probably be a property of a lexeme, not an item, if we don't already have it? Lectrician1 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Probably I've chosen too wide context in my proposal. Currently I use those abbreviations in context of bibliography so they are topic-related. Ruwiki rules recommend to use GOST bibliography style which uses such abbreviations. So they could be different in another context. Should I rename this proposal to "Bibliography abbreviation"? D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also abbreviation context (e. g. bibliography) can be specified by qualifiers, but I do not know whether it is good idea or not. But if it is not related to a word but rather to a topic, then no context need to be specified like in issue (Q28869365), which is related only to periodical publications. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is even entry in abbreviations table (P8703) not an option? This sounds like a problem with the users reverting your edits, who are definitely wrong here - a short name is an abbreviated name in most cases. In any case, I agree that this can be achieved with lexemes, if mainly because the people reverting your edits probably don't pay attention to them --عُثمان (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, it seems that entry in abbreviations table (P8703) is exactly what I need. Thanks! And it already supports different contexts. But why is its name so complicated ("entry in abbreviations table")? Why not just abbreviation? I tried to search that property in many ways but didn't find it. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, since abbreviations table must be part of a book, it will be used in a very narrow context, I can't use it if different languages. My idea was to create abbreviation property that could contain abbreviations for different languages in a specified context. In my case the context is bibliography. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it could be used in a broader context; for any referenceable work including bibliographies or any published table. It looks like aliases for abbreviation entry have been added to make it easier to find which is good. Often the description of a property can be more specific than it is intended for, this is something that could be adjusted. As we would need a reference to say that an abbreviation is used in bibliographies for example anyway, we could use this property to indicate a particularly notable or authorative source on bibliographic abbreviations for a language. I will try to find an example to do this with.
    (Sorry for the late reply, I did not get notifications for these, maybe I need to change my settings for this.) عُثمان (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've already started using entry in abbreviations table (P8703) property in my lua module, and I still need more convenient way to do so. Currently I need to specify map (table) of entity ids by language in lua. Russian language has its own entity and other languages has another entities. I have chosen some good abbreviation sources. What I need is to specify a language for abbreviation entry and a context. I could probably reuse entry in abbreviations table (P8703) property without the creation of a new one, if I would have a way to specify context and language. Currently abbreviation table might have abbreviations in different languages (see [2]). So the type of value need to be monolingual text rather than just text. And another property must specify context, i. e. bibliography.
    I think much easier would be to use abbreviation property as monolingual text with the context and information source rather than abbreviation table entry. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I am stuck because entry in abbreviations table (P8703) is not a monolingual property (I can't filter it by language). It depends on the language of the abbreviation table, but GOST 7.11-2004 is multilingual. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I read some more about this property, it is related to abbreviations table, which is part of a book. Can it be used for a broader context? D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support mixing short labels and abbreviations together was a bad idea. Whenever there are cases where items should have both it's currently a mess. ChristianKl❫ 20:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I support this data model that utilizes Lexemes instead Wikidata:Property proposal/abbreviation of. Lectrician1 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why doesn't short name (P1813) work? Lectrician1 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lectrician1 The problem with short name (P1813) is that it mixes two different things together. If we take the example at the property page Orange County (Q5925) has two short names "Orange" and "OC". "United States" is a valid short name for "United States of America" as well that's distinct from the abbreviation. In some usecases you actually want to have "US" and not "United States" and want "OC" and not "Orange". A specialized abbrevation property would allow for this. ChristianKl❫ 20:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you're saying we don't have a property for non-acronym abbreviations? Lectrician1 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure what the best terms are to describe it but "Orange" and "OC" seem to me like entities that are different in the same way that "United States" and "US" are different and abbreviation seems to me like a fine name for the later. ChristianKl❫ 13:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChristianKl The only problem is that "New York" is technically an abbreviation for "New York City" so if the property is really mean to separate acronym abbreviations with non-acronym abbreviations, well then it should be named that way as "non-accronym abbreviation". That way we don't have people putting "New York" in this property and short name (P1813). Lectrician1 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But New York is not and abbreviation. It should be a short name. Non-acronym abbreviation for the New York would be N. Y. And acronym would be NY. Probably 3 different properties would be perfect solution, but currently short name (P1813) is a mix of short name, abbreviation and acronym. The property I proposed is non-acronym abbreviation. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @D6194c-1cc the question is whether everyone who reads "shortened form of word or phrase" understands that "New York" is no good value for "New York City". It's useful to think whether the description could be made more clear to reduce people misunderstanding the intent. ChristianKl❫ 17:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, dictionaries use New York City name as alias for New York and New York is the main name, so it is not the best example to discuss. If we consider Carl Sagan (Q410) as example, then shortened form would be Carl Sagan and he's full name is Carl Edward Sagan. Abbreviated form of his name would be C. Sagan or C. E. Sagan or Carl E. Sagan. D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But New York is not and abbreviation.
    "New York" is an abbreviation. See definition of abbreviation and difference between acronym here.
    Non-acronym abbreviation for the New York would be N. Y. And acronym would be NY
    Um no. "N. Y." is an acronym... Lectrician1 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An abbreviation is a short form of a word or phrase, made by leaving out some of the letters or by using only the first letter of each word.
    The postal abbreviation for Kansas is KS.

    in American English:
    3. a shortened form of a word or phrase, as N. Y. for New York, Mr. for Mister, lbfor pound, ctn for cotangent
    D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    a shortened form of a word or phrase.
    still makes me think "New York" is a valid abbreviation for "New York City"
    I don't think we're going to find our answer to whether shortened-non acronym phrases are considered abbreviations online, so I posted a Stack Exchange question. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since lexemes were mentions, I didn't find any possibility to use them. Lua module determines publication's language and its QID, then it looks up abbreviation (currently by entry in abbreviations table (P8703) property). It would probably work for many languages. Lexemes are language-dependent and in current realisation cannot be fetched from QIDs. I use wikidata entities as a simple translation method of a topic, but not a word. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I just remembered my stance on properties that are monolingual text and my thought that we should totally use lexemes instead! Describing the relationship between a word or phrase and its abbreviation is entirely possible with derived from lexeme (P5191) and qualifier mode of derivation (P5886) abbreviation (Q102786). Linking it back to its definition can be done with item for this sense (P5137). Lectrician1 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikidata items doesn't have a property with a language-dependent list of lexemes from which items consist of. Moreover it needs language to be specified for every such a list. Proposing a new property for a list of lexemes is unsolvable problem at the moment. There is no data types that could hold an array of lexemes with specified language (monolingual lexeme array). Introducing such data type is a task for engine developers. Here is example for The Demon-Haunted World (Q2482106):
    1. The Demon-Haunted World -> the (L2768), demon (L6550), haunted (L337269), world (L5203) (en).
    2. Мир, полный демонов -> мир (L100000), полный демон (L144461).
    3. ...
    D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's why you run a SPARQL query to get the lexemes whose value for item for this sense (P5137) is the item. You don't need a property. Lectrician1 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The extension LinkedWiki (to run SPARQL queries) is probably not supported within Wikipedia. Lua modules can fetch Wikidata item and their properties values directly via mw.wikibase interface. Also retrieving data "from the back" would not be a good-performance solution. And item for this sense (P5137) is useless since mane Wikidata items have no associated lexemes. They consist from different lexemes, and the only way to specify lexemes for the item is array of arrays of lexemes. Every lexeme need to be abbreviated separately in case of lexemes, and this method doesn't cover context-specific abbreviations which probably can differ from context to context (see [3] for example). D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The extension LinkedWiki (to run SPARQL queries) is probably not supported within Wikipedia. Lua modules can fetch Wikidata item and their properties values directly via mw.wikibase interface.
    That's a Wikipedia problem then. That shouldn't impact how we model things on Wikidata.
    Also retrieving data "from the back" would not be a good-performance solution.
    Wikidata SPARQL Service handles thousands of queries every day. It can handle it.
    And item for this sense (P5137) is useless since mane Wikidata items have no associated lexemes.
    Well then you create lexemes for them.
    They consist from different lexemes, and the only way to specify lexemes for the item is array of arrays of lexemes. Every lexeme need to be abbreviated separately in case of lexemes, and this method doesn't cover context-specific abbreviations which probably can differ from context to context
    I don't understand this completely, can you elaborate? You can also create multiple abbreviation lexemes for the abbreviation of one lexeme. If you're concerned about using just one of them, then specify which one of them in your code. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support, but this should be allowed in lexemes as well. For example: east-southeast/ESE/E.S.E. (L750594). I'd like to be able to make a statement that E.S.E. and ESE are abbreviations of "east-southeast". (ESE is not an acronym because it is not pronounced as a word like Unesco is. See also where ESE is labeled as an abbreviation.) As for New York being an abbreviation of New York City, um, no. The name of the city is New York, not New York City. New York City is just a commonly used name for the city to distinguish it from the state. New York is not the short name of New York City, New York City is a longer (or more accurately, variant) form of the City of New York. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Initialisms should also be excluded. Dictionaries use common term "abbreviation" for abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms. I didn't find any that distinguish initialisms and acronyms from other abbreviations. Acronyms and initialisms should be in separate properties. D6194c-1cc (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose short name covers this with appropriate qualifiers if needed BrokenSegue (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In that case short name could have 4 values for one language. The list will be huge. It doesn't make sense to combine short names, abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms in single property. D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Disagree Also, two different values with appropriate qualifiers might break some Wikipedia templates which don't expect multiple values for the same language. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Base Units edit

   Under discussion
DescriptionProperty that lists the different units that a unit is derived from, would be useful to add a qualifier for the exponent of each unit ie. metre per second (Q182429)second (Q11574) → -1.
Data typeItem
Domainunit of measurement (Q47574)
Allowed valuesinstance of (P31)unit of measurement (Q47574)
Example 1metre per second (Q182429)metre (Q11573)
metre per second (Q182429)second (Q11574)
Example 2pound-foot (Q16859309)foot (Q3710)
pound-foot (Q16859309)pound (Q100995)
Example 3cubic metre (Q25517)metre (Q11573)
Example 4newton (Q12438)kilogram (Q11570)

newton (Q12438)metre (Q11573)

newton (Q12438)second (Q11574)
Planned useAdd better definitions of units and relations to other units
See alsounit symbol (P5061), conversion to SI unit (P2370), conversion to standard unit (P2442)

Motivation edit

Units are important in many fields and it is important to have some kind of structure to help add relationships between units. The more structured knowledge there is for units the more useful quantities can become and be better used together. -I is chan (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

has part(s) (P527) doesn't seem like a proper use case for this because for metre per second (Q182429)has part(s) (P527)second (Q11574) technically second (Q11574) is being removed from the unit rather than being "a part of" it, perhaps it could have a negative quantity (P1114) quantifier? -I is chan (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think has part(s) (P527) fits fine. Units that are composed of several other units are also called "compound units". E.g. [4] says "speed is a compound unit as it is defined using both distance and time". So the other units are all part of the definition. --Push-f (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from language edit

Motivation edit

I propose the introduction of two new qualifiers "from language" and "to language" to qualify the source and target languages of translators (be they humans or software).

--Push-f (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

to language edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier stating that a value pertains to the translation to a particular language
Data typeItem
Example 1see #from language
Example 2see #from language
Example 3see #from language

See #from language for the motivation and discussion.

has subfunction edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionsubsidiary function of the subject (includes current and former functions). Only use this property if the function is distinguishing for instances of the parent class or you want to add further information about the statement via a qualifier.
Data typeItem
Domaininstances (items with instance of (P31) that do not have subclass of (P279))
Example 1iPod Shuffle 4G (Q114972466)has subfunctionplaylist (Q1569406)
Example 2vi (Q214743)has subfunctioncopy (Q42282254)object named as (P1932)yank
Example 3X (Q918)has subfunctionmention (Q6817566)start time (P580)May 2008
Example 4X (Q918)has subfunctionRSS (Q45432)end time (P582)March 5, 2013
See alsohas use (P366), has part(s) (P527)

Motivation edit

We have has use (P366) to express the "main use of the subject". We currently however do not have a property to express a secondary use of a subject. The current lack of a fitting property leads to the misuse of various other properties, e.g:

I therefore propose to introduce two new properties "has subfunction" and "does not have subfunction" as described in this and the following section.

Please note that "has subfunction" should only be used in two cases:

  • 1) the subfunction is distinguishing for instances of the parent class, or
  • 2) further information about the statement is provided via a qualifier

To illustrate this with examples:

This restriction to distinguishing functions is intended to avoid the creation of hundreds of statements per item that do not really express anything interesting.

Please also note that like has use (P366) the proposed property "has subfunction" also includes former functions via the end time (P582) qualifier, for example:

Note that in such a case you should NOT additionally add a "does not have subfunction" statement with the same object. Instead the proposed #does not have subfunction property is solely intended to be used for functions that have never been present (but are likely to be expected from instances of the class). For example:

This proposal replaces my previous proposal to introduce a "has software feature" property because it has been rightfully argued that the property should not be restricted to software features.

--Push-f (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

 Comment I don't see how your proposal addresses the Wikidata Query GUI (Q114902143) statements. The values listed aren't either primary or secondary "uses", they are output formats (or methods). The property therefore shouldn't be has use (P366) but either writable file format (P1073) (if the file format, or family of formats, is sufficiently well specified) or output device (P5196) (if the output is described in more general terms, such as table (Q496946)).

Maybe specify both, with the file format as a qualifier?

Wikidata Query GUI (Q114902143)output device (P5196)table (Q496946)writable file format (P1073)comma-separated values (Q935809)

That will however require adding "as qualifier" to the property scope constraint of writable file format (P1073).

Since all the usage examples for output device (P5196) seem to be about VR headsets, you may get the impression that it's about hardware only, but the value of that property isn't constrained to any particular type, and one of the more common values is computer file (Q82753). --SM5POR (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have expanded the scope of writable file format (P1073) to include use as a qualifier, as per my own suggestion above. SM5POR (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moment, I misread the statistics and there is apparently only one case of the output device (P5196) value being a computer file. Still I don't see why this property should be restricted to hardware devices, especially as a "method" isn't necessarily hardware, and two other values I found are "standard output" and "desktop environment" (but there is also "computer monitor" which hints at different notions being adopted by different editors).
If the application itself doesn't have a hardware interface, but interacts via a data stream, what purpose would output device (P5196) serve being applied to that application? SM5POR (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with scatter plot (Q1045782) or map (Q4006) being output methods of Wikidata Query GUI (Q114902143) because you cannot actually download the plot or the map. These are rather what I'd call "display formats". WDQS calls them result views ... note that most of these allow for some interactivity, so I think "has subfunction" would actually work fine for them.
Please note that the downloadable formats are very much independent from the result views, so I'd object to Wikidata Query GUI (Q114902143)output device (P5196)table (Q496946)writable file format (P1073)comma-separated values (Q935809) and instead just state Wikidata Query GUI (Q114902143)writable file format (P1073)comma-separated values (Q935809).
--Push-f (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand output device (P5196), it's intended for "output devices and user interfaces". It has no value constraints, so that tells us nothing about the intentions, but the corresponding input device (P479) property has these alternatives listed in its value constraints, and I guess the two properties are meant to cover essentially the same domains (of course, hardware devices are often unidirectional and will then be limited to only one of the properties).
I don't see that output device (P5196) is in any way limited to either downloadable or on-screen data, but the precise interface mode could well be described using appropriate qualifiers. The reason I suggest grouping them under output device (P5196) is that an application may have multiple input and output streams or interfaces (in hardware or software), and simply listing all the encodings, file formats, languages and connectors as main statements on the application item will tell us nothing about which interface parameters pertain to the same data.
That is however another discussion which we can continue elsewhere. To address your suggestion to use "has subfunction", I understand that as being a much broader property, that includes not only user interfaces, input and output, but also internal things like calculations, security features, whatever. The I/O-related qualifiers will be rather useless (or perhaps ambiguous) when attached to an arbitrary "has subfunction" statement. And as the general recommendation on Wikidata is to use the most specific property available, I guess that output device (P5196) will "win" every time over "has subfunction" for anything output-related. SM5POR (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment To me, a "secondary use" is something you use for a particular purpose when you do not use it for its primary purpose, say, using old newspaper sheets to wrap around flowers. Do people actually use Twitter to access the "mention" function without tweeting anything at all?

But I agree that used by (P1535) is a poor fit for that feature/application relation. Are you sure part of (P361) wouldn't satisfy this particular need, at least in the interim until we find a similar situation that may inspire to a better idea? --SM5POR (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest I am not so sure about the label. "function" is certainly less ambiguous than "feature" and also does not have such a problematic overlap with "has part". And yes I am sure that has part(s) (P527) is unsuited in the software domain because I'd expect it to be used for software components, which certainly do not need to correspond to functions or features.
Using a thing for a purpose it was not intended for rather falls under "creative reuse" for me. I'd consider "secondary function" simply an intended function that is not the primary function. So yes you are unlikely to use something just for a secondary function because you are likely to use it for its primary function. An alternative label for "secondary function" could be "side function". --Push-f (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have updated the proposed property label from "has secondary function" to "has subfunction". Wiktionary defines subfunction as "A secondary or subsidiary function." I think subfunction is a better term because it suggests that there can be multiple subfunctions and that these subfunctions together aid/form the main function. --Push-f (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that "subfunction" is a better term than "secondary function" if you intend to describe a function that is part of a broader application but just implements a minor detail of it, such as mentions in a social forum; as you say, they aid the main function. Still I don't think it's necessary to relabel "has use" to "has main use", since most uses that don't qualify as "main uses" will hardly satisfy the notability criterion either. Would you bother to add newspaperhas side useflower wrapping or rockhas side usedoor stop to Wikidata? There may me exceptions, such as highwayhas side usefighter plane take-off and landing strip, but they will be greatly outnumbered by instances of "has use", and I would rather qualify that as highwayhas usefighter plane take-off and landing stripnature of statementsometimes. SM5POR (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, I have removed the suggestion to rename has use (P366) from my proposal. --Push-f (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused by your many labels here, especially as you have just changed the label of this proposal from "has secondary function" to "has subfunction". Do you regard "secondary/side function" as synonymous to "creative reuse" or to "subfunction"? In my comment above I assumed the former, but if you don't interpret the words the same as I do, it may seem nonsensical... Anyway, if we are talking either flower wrapping or wartime airplane runways, I'd regard both as "creative reuses" or simply "side uses", and if I'm a florist or a fighter pilot, I'm actually quite unlikely to also read those newspapers or drive a car on that highway, respectively. Not sure if this is what you referred to, though. SM5POR (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry about the confusion caused by the renaming. You assumed correctly, though I do not regard them as synonymous just as overlapping. I understand how "secondary use" could be easily understood as "creative reuse", which is not what I intended ... but I think my renaming to "subfunction" solves this source of confusion ... thanks for pointing it out :) --Push-f (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually think that making a "has feature" property would be a lot more useful and clear than a "subfunction" feature. "Subfunction" also has some mathematical and computer programming meanings that will make the current label confusing. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 06:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "has feature" would be too easily confused with "has part", e.g. swimming pool (Q1501)has featurespringboard (Q1543431). And "feature" has many different meanings as well ... from cliff features, to facial features to pool features. Look at the Merriam-Webster entry ... it's way too ambiguous e.g. "a prominent part or characteristic". --Push-f (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is definitely an overlap with "has part" but I don't think that is a problem. A part can be a feature but doesn't have to be and feature can be a part but that is not necessarily. It seems like we are moving away from what we were initially trying to model (software features) and in doing so losing much of the clarity and utility of the proposed properties.
Regarding the multiple meanings of the word "feature", what if we use either "has product feature" (or "has technical feature")? That would remove the ambiguity regarding the other meanings of "feature" and make it clear that it only refers to man-made things. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 09:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open source software is generally not referred to as "product". And "technical feature" still has the same problematic overlap with "has part" because "feature" can mean "part" or "characteristic" e.g. iPod Shuffle 4G (Q114972466)has technical featureheadphone jack (Q114973405) ... that's a true statement but could just as well be modeled with has part(s) (P527). "has technical feature" could even be misused for the main use e.g. iPod Shuffle 4G (Q114972466)has technical featureplayback (Q115114207), which would also be a true statement but should be modeled with has use (P366) instead.
I really think that "subfunction" is vastly clearer. "has feature" should certainly be an alias to aid in the property discovery but it's unsuited to be the label (with or without the "technical" prefix).
--Push-f (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak support I like the idea, and looks useful, but the wording is still a bit hazy in my opinion. I think that in practice it would work well. TiagoLubiana (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Oppose subfunction as I'm not clear what is a "sub" function and the relationship isn't clear  Strong oppose to does not have subfunction as that list is infinitely long BrokenSegue (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose Idea is okay, but name is just not right. There is a well established term for what's being talked about. It's "feature". So "has feature" (or "has technical feature" if you want to be more specific) seems incredibly more intuitive than "subfunction", which implies a connection to a "has function" property, which does not exist, and this property is more distinct from "has use" than "has subfunction" implies. Circeus (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

does not have subfunction edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionexpected subsidiary function that the item does not have and never had (for subfunctions that were removed use "has subfunction" qualified with end time (P582) instead)
Data typeItem
Domaininstances (items with instance of (P31) that do not have subclass of (P279))
Example 1iPod Shuffle 4G (Q114972466)does not have subfunctionfast forward (Q5437034)
Example 2vi (Q214743)does not have subfunctionredo (Q42282532)
Example 3YouTube (Q866)does not have subfunctiondownload (Q7126717)
See alsodoes not have part (P3113)

See #has subfunction for the motivation and discussion.

headline or heading edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe title of an article, chapter, section and similar
Data typeMonolingual text
Example 1ContraPoints Is the Opposite of the Internet (Q111308529):
title (P1476): ContraPoints Is the Opposite of the Internet → proposed property: ContraPoints Is the Opposite of the Internet
Example 2Claire-Louise Bennett (Q55828246):
place of birth (P19), references: title (P1476): Hmmmm, Stylish → proposed property: Hmmmm, Stylish
Example 3reference example:
stated in (P248): Dictionary of Irish Biography (Q111109010); volume (P478): 3; page(s) (P304): 120; propsed property: Last name, First name
Example 4reference example:
stated in (P248): The New York Times (Q9684); propsed property: Avocados—What Are They?; author name string (P2093): Bob McBobson; publication date (P577) January 18, 1997; reference URL (P854): […]
See alsochapter (P792)

Motivation edit

A property is needed for headlines etc that should be within "quotation marks", like magazine and journal articles. The properties that currently exist are insufficient:

  • title (P1476) covers too much, namely any sort of title: both titles of works and titles of articles or chapters in a work. No distinction is possible, unless you create a Wikidata item for the work, in which case both title (P1476) and stated in (P248) thus result in italicized titles when transcluded to Wikipedia. So we still need to make a distinction between titles of works and headlines of sections if we want to be able to transclude properly formatted references to Wikipedia.
  • chapter (P792) works well for numbers, but not for words. Chapter titles are written in quotation marks, isolated chapter numbers are not.
  • section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) probably works well in many cases, but not in cases when e.g. the article itself a Wikidata item, such as Example 1. When transcluded, this results in a title in quotation marks followed by the same title in italics. And, just like title (P1476), this property seems to cover too much. It seems to be used for e.g. both paragraphs in legal texts and bible verses, but those two are formatted differently, and neither of them puts the verse/parapgraph in quotation marks, like this property does when transcluded as a reference.

Förbätterlig (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

Yes, that's actually the point. It's oviously very impractical to have several aspects of a single property like that. Förbätterlig (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Does every language have the same conventions regarding formatting for headlines, chapters, and sections? I suspect not, so it would make more sense to split these into different properties so that each can have locale-specific formatting. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 00:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many languages all over the world use quotation marks, which will have to be formatted individually in cite templates ("" can be the default). If additional properties are needed, they can always be added later on. Förbätterlig (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference between many and all is important. If some languages use quotes for, say, chapter titles but not section titles, then this property would not work for them. I  Oppose making one property for headlines, chapter titles, and section titles, as is currently proposed, but would support making three different properties (one for each). — The Erinaceous One 🦔 00:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose What yuo are asking is for different types of items to have different properties to give the title. I see no justification for this that cannot be handled by looking at the "instance of" property. Circeus (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose: too specific IMO. Maxime Ravel (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

action applies to edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to be used when the object of a statement is an action, to qualify what the action applies to
Data typeItem
Domainitems that are subclasses of occurrence (Q1190554)
Example 1film editing (Q237893)subclass of (P279)editing (Q194105)action applies tofilm (Q11424)
Example 2text editor (Q131212)has use (P366)editing (Q194105)action applies toplain text (Q1145976)
Example 3rmdir (Q218127)has use (P366)deletion (Q18411409)action applies toempty directory (Q115092120)
Example 4HTTP client (Q2979024)has use (P366)sending (Q115088683)action applies toHTTP request (Q4344724)
Example 5thermal insulation (Q918306)has goal (P3712)reduction (Q47496130)action applies toheat transfer (Q179635)
Example 6fall protection (Q23580296)has goal (P3712)prevention (Q1717246)action applies tofalling (Q333495)
See alsoof (P642), ?item wdt:instance of (P31) wd:Wikidata qualifier to describe the object of a statement (Q115396176)

Motivation edit

We want to deprecate the overused and ambiguous of (P642) and this property can replace of (P642) for the described purpose.

The property is specifically meant for objects that describe some activity and are labeled after some verb, e.g:

  • editing -> to edit sth. -> sth. can be qualified with "action applies to"
  • deletion -> to delete sth. -> sth. can be qualified with "action applies to"
  • sending -> to send sth. -> sth. can be qualified with "action applies to"
  • reduction -> to reduce sth. -> sth. can be qualified with "action applies to"
  • prevention -> to prevent sth. -> sth. can be qualified with "action applies to"
  • etc.

The proposed qualifier would be an instance of (P31)restrictive qualifier (Q61719275).

--Push-f (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Push-f: Let's avoid repeating each other's work: The whole of Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642 is already set up to track the uses and proposed replacements, and in fact, there was already an entry that matches this proposal (see the section Wikidata:WikiProject_Data_Quality/Issues/P642#Qualifying_any_property): "item to which action applies", aliases "object of action"; "target of action"; "patient". That label and those aliases inherently convey that the domain is restricted to occurrences, which "object pertains to" does not. If those more specific label/aliases are used instead, I can support this proposal. Note, though, per the table, that there are statements whose object is an occurrence for which another qualifier is better suited (namely, criterion used (P1013) when the qualifier value is a quality or the like, and applies to part (P518) when the qualifier value is part of the subject item), and any auto migration to this new property should take care to treat those statements accordingly. Swpb (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Swpb: Right, I did look at Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642 before creating this proposal but found all of these tables to be quite hard to read. Nonetheless I think it's a very good sign that we both ended up restricting the domain to occurrence (Q1190554).
    I just updated the proposed label from "object pertains to" (which indeed was too vague) to "action applies to" which I think is preferable to "item to which action applies" since it's more succinct.
    Could you please give me concrete examples for cases where criterion used (P1013) and applies to part (P518) would be preferable over this new qualifier we want to introduce?
    --Push-f (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can work on making the tables easier to read. I do wish you had asked for clarification of them before you started a proposal discussion, but I think we're on roughly the same page now. I agree "action applies to" is better.
As for the cases where other properties may be better, I'll take the first example straight from the table:
  1. playing (Q110458661)has goal (P3712)improvement (Q21255975)criterion used (P1013)game position (Q98695319)
I'll have to work on finding a good example of the other case when I have a chance; I have to go offline now. Swpb (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Push-f: For the second case, I realized while working on the query that applies to part (P518) is the best replacement for of (P642) whenever the qualifier value is part of the subject item, not just when the statement value is an occurrence. Lots of examples of that in this query. I've expanded the use case on Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642 accordingly. Swpb (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example 1: "action applies to" should be a main statement rather than a qualifier. Example 2: text editors like VSCode can edit other file types other than plain text. Plain text also seems to be heavily conflated at the moment in this regard too. Lectrician1 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fail to see the problem with qualifying subclass of (P279) with a clearly defined qualifier such as "action applies to". Is there some reasoning behind this "don't qualify P279" mindset?
has use (P366) is described as "main use of the subject" ... and the main use of a text editor is the editing of plain text. Stating a "main use" does not imply that there cannot be other uses. Sidenote: "main use" does not even have a single-value or best-value constraint so there can also be multiple main uses and indeed many items specify multiple. So I consider Visual Studio Code (Q19841877)has use (P366)editing (Q194105)action applies toplain text (Q1145976) to be a true statement because even if VS code can edit non-plain-text files its main use cases certainly is the editing of plain text files. Also note that even Vim (Q131382) allows the editing of binary files with -b.
--Push-f (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see the problem with qualifying subclass of (P279) with a clearly defined qualifier such as "action applies to". Is there some reasoning behind this "don't qualify P279" mindset?
The action you're describing is the film editing itself. It makes sense to relate the action and whatever it applies to directly and not through a qualifier. If you use a qualifier it makes it seem as if "editing" always and only applies to "film". Lectrician1 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
has use (P366) is described as "main use of the subject" ... and the main use of a text editor is the editing of plain text. Stating a "main use" does not imply that there cannot be other uses. Sidenote: "main use" does not even have a single-value or best-value constraint so there can also be multiple main uses and indeed many items specify multiple. So I consider Visual Studio Code (Q19841877)has use (P366)editing (Q194105)action applies toplain text (Q1145976) to be a true statement because even if VS code can edit non-plain-text files its main use cases certainly is the editing of plain text files. Also note that even Vim (Q131382) allows the editing of binary files with -b.
Makes sense. Lectrician1 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The action you're describing is the film editing itself.

No, certainly not. "film editing" is subclass of the "editing" action that only applies the action to "film". Makes perfect sense to me.

If you use a qualifier it makes it seem as if "editing" always and only applies to "film".

Yes but that is very much the case for "film editing" that the "editing" only applies to "film".
--Push-f (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree with "If you use a qualifier it makes it seem as if "editing" always and only applies to "film"." The full statement is saying (unambiguously, IMO) that in the context of film editing specifically, the editing is done to film. Which allows for infinite other contexts, where editing is done to things other than film. "Action applies to" should definitely not be a main statement; that would open it to all sorts of ambiguous uses. Swpb (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Action applies to" should definitely not be a main statement; that would open it to all sorts of ambiguous uses.
Like what? Lectrician1 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pick any activity you like: does travel (Q61509) "apply to" a traveler, a starting point, a destination, etc.? And in what way does it apply to each? Allowing this as a main statement property invites all sorts of "creative" uses that will be impossible to systematize. It works as a qualifier precisely because the parent statement provides context - there is no wondering what is meant by each of the example statements above. Swpb (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example 3:

rmdir (Q218127) has use (P366)deletion (Q18411409) action applies to empty directory (Q115092120)

Deletion of empty directory where? Another computer? How does it know the context of where? This action needs to be modeled with a more complex data model that explicitly defines what is going on here in an operating system. Lectrician1 (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any computer operation that applies to a computer file can be assumed to refer to a local file unless otherwise qualified. Because 99% of all command-line tools operate on local files and we certainly don't want to force all of these statements to be needlessly qualified.
You do raise a very good point however: how do we model the difference between cp (Q305946) and scp (Q115516614)?
I just created the source of action & destination of action proposal to address that.
--Push-f (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per discussion between myself and proposer above. Swpb (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Examples 5 and 6 are not actions. Lectrician1 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The scope is occurrence (Q1190554), not action, and both are occurrences through a chain of subclass of (P279) statements. Swpb (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Push-f @Swpb @JAn Dudík @ChristianKl just going to point out that Wikidata:Property proposal/object of action provides a more-specific property for examples 1-3. Additionally I find this property extremely concerning because the different type of relationship examples 1-3 are making compared to 4-6. 1-3 are making an action -> object relation whereas 4 is making an object -> object relation, and 5 and 6 are making an object -> action relationship. If we have inconsistent relationships like this, this property could be used in out-of-control ways like of (P642) is currently used. Furthermore, we have no constraints to prevent "incorrect" uses either. Please consider opposing for these reasons. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

subclass of with uncertain existance edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionequivalent of this class where it's uncertain whether the instances of the class actually exist; can also be used if it's certain that they don't exist
Data typeItem
Example 1human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568)human (Q5)
Example 2organisation that may or may not be fictional (Q113584205)organization (Q43229)
Example 3object of uncertain existence (Q115471146)castle (Q23413)
See alsofictional or mythical analog of (P1074)

Motivation edit

This property will be a subproperty of subclass of (P279). We don't want that human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) appear in queries for human (Q5) and as such it's problematic to actually let it subclass human (Q5). At the same time, users regularly try to add the subclass at normal rank. I propose this property so that this relationship can be well modeled. ChristianKl❫ 11:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

This discussion comes out of

I'd want as few classes generated as possible, so I'd push the class as high as possible, so not object of uncertain existence (Q115471146) but a class of architectural structure (Q811979) called "proposed architectural structure", and when its used for a castle have a instance of (P31) qualifier with value castle (Q23413). I'd use it for historical references to buildings, not mythical ones, but the dividing line is blurred here. For that reason I'd use 'proposed' rather than 'fictional', as its thought to be part of the historical record, not an invention as part of a work of fiction. "Proposed" might not be the best word, as that could include building plans, perhaps "suggested" would be better. Vicarage (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of the case of castle we still have organisation that may or may not be fictional (Q113584205) and human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568). ChristianKl❫ 16:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment The problem is that the class of all X which might exist is not a subclass of the class of all X which do exist. Depending on how you understand “might exist” (i.e. does this only include X with unproven existence or all?), it’s the other way round at best. So “subclass of” is a poor naming, in my opinion, and making it a subproperty of subclass of (P279) would encourage sloppy modelling. That said, I do  Support the idea of creating a property for this kind of linking, but I’d recommend naming it differently – “counterpart with uncertain existance to” or “uncertain existance version of” perhaps. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:55AC:C874:B5ED:83CD 11:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment How would the proposed property handle transitivity? Would all subclasses of a class "with uncertain existence" inherit the uncertain existence property? — The Erinaceous One 🦔 07:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That’s exactly the question with “might exist”. If “might exist” means that existence is (has to be) uncertain, then every subclass would inherit the uncertain existence, so the “not uncertain” class could not be a subclass. If we understand “might exist” as “may or may not exist”, then the “not uncertain” subclass simply comprises those items where the “may not” part does not apply (and its subclasses, in turn, would comprise some of those items). I don’t see a problem with transitivity in either case, but the former wouldn’t be useful for the problem at hand. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:254A:DF6C:D37E:B93F 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @2A02:8108:50BF:C694:254A:DF6C:D37E:B93F: if you want to vote and comment and have your votes respected it would be great if you would register an account instead of just commenting anonymously. ChristianKl❫ 13:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At the moment I’m fine with commenting. But I do consider creating an account. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:254A:DF6C:D37E:B93F 17:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One solution would be to let human (Q5) and fictional human (Q15632617) subclass human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) as Arthur proposes. I created a thread in the ontology Wikiproject for that idea. If we decide for that this property wouldn't inherit anything, otherwise we likely still want to explicitely say for every subclass what their equivalent is and not use value hierarchy property (P6609) to specify transitivity. ChristianKl❫ 13:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would we have to have a parallel class tree for each class? In other words, would we also make "dogs who may be fictional", "castles that may be fictional", "airplanes that may be fictional", etc.? This approach seems overly burdensome. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 01:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would expect that we would create items like "dogs who may be fictional", "castles that may be fictional", "airplanes that may be fictional" whenever someone actually needs them. At the same time, it likely would produce an extra tree and that might be bad for SPARQL query performance.
    Creating this property would do the job without needing an extra tree. ChristianKl❫ 12:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment WD astronomers have already wrestled with uncertainly and came up with and create a small number of classes with caveat names. This doesn't seem scalable. I still think have a single new class 'uncertain status' with aliases 'unconfirmed as', 'suggested site of' 'maybe fictional', 'maybe mythical' etc and then using the normal classes as objects would be best. So a frog might be 'uncertain status' 'frog' and 'prince'. Invisible to most queries, easy to select systematically for completest ones Vicarage (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • How do you plan to make sure that it is invisible to most queries? Should "frog" have normal rank and "uncertain status" (or "entity of uncertain existence") a preferred rank? Or should "frog" have a deprecated rank and "entity of uncertain existence" a normal one? I'm not sure about this as it seems to utilize ranks for something they were not designed for. But your comment reminds me of a property proposal some time ago: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Fictional_instance_of_real_object. One could phrase it something like "described as instance of" and use it for any kind of thing - hypothetical persons, mythical entities, hoaxes, fictional entities, etc. This would also be an alternative to your proposed use of instance of (P31) as a qualifier. But while this would be just an addition to many projects this would mean a complete overhaul of the model that is now (successfully and quite consistently) used for many years for fictional entities. This would be quite disruptive for the fictional universe Project and come up with a completely different model. I just wanted to throw this into the room as another possibility. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For a concrete example Cae Tump Placename 2, Gladestry (Q38611878) has instance of (P31) of object of uncertain existence (Q115471146) with qualifier instance of (P31) castle (Q23413)
    SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
    *:  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE]". }
    *:  {
    *:    SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?possible WHERE {
    *:      ?item p:P131 ?county.
    *:      ?county (ps:P131/(wdt:P279*)) wd:Q5566244.
    *:      {?item p:P31 ?statement2.
    *:      ?statement2 (ps:P31/(wdt:P279*)) wd:Q23413.
    *:      }
    *:      UNION
    *:      {?item p:P31/pq:P31 wd:Q23413.}
    *:    }
    *:  }
    Try it!
    Finds Cae Tump Placename 1, Gladestry (Q39011444) as a castle, and Cae Tump Placename 2, Gladestry (Q38611878) as a possible castle. This would require a instance of (P31) change to accept a new class of possible things. Vicarage (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone runs a query for "How many humans lived past 110?", that query should automatically avoid counting people in the bible with mythical status. Generally, if people do a SPARQL query they don't want objects that might not exist to be included by default. Requiring everyone to runs a query to explicitely think about not showing objects that don't exist creates an unnecessary burden. It also makes the SPARQL query more complex and thus has performance costs. ChristianKl❫ 12:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would be solved by “human” being a subclass of “human who might (not) exist”, and “biblical figure” being a subclass of the latter, too. If someone wants to include humans who might not exist, they query for (transitive) instances of “human who might (not) exist” instead of “human”. The problem with parallel class trees persists, though. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:545:E0DA:374F:594A 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

source of action edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to be used when the object of a statement is an action, to qualify what's the source of the action
Data typeItem
Example 1cp (Q305946)has use (P366)copying (Q1156791)action applies tocomputer file (Q82753)source of actionlocal host (Q115517044)destination of actionlocal host (Q115517044)
Example 2
Example 3
  • git clone (Q115519944)has use (P366)cloning of a repository (Q115520056)action applies to git repository (Q115520005)source of actionlocal host (Q115517044)destination of actionlocal host (Q115517044)
  • git clone (Q115519944)has use (P366)cloning of a repository (Q115520056)action applies to git repository (Q115520005)source of actionremote host (Q115517047)destination of actionlocal host (Q115517044)
  • Example 4
  • pitch (Q1063937)source of actionpitcher (Q1048902)
  • pitch (Q1063937)destination of actioncatcher (Q1050571)
  • Example 5
  • Alaska Purchase (Q309029)has part(s) (P527)transfer (Q315364)action applies to Alaska (Q797)source of actionRussian Empire (Q34266)destination of actionUnited States of America (Q30)
  • Example 6
  • data import into Wikidata (Q107661232)destination of actionWikidata (Q2013)
  • See alsofrom language & to language

    Motivation edit

    Many computer tools has use (P366) is to copy/move/transfer something from A to B.

    It would be nice to be able to qualify statements as shown in the above examples.

    Note that the examples use the qualifier action applies to , which has not been created yet.

    --Push-f (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    (Note: domain expanded (with support of proposer) to source/destination for all types of transfers (physical, digital, legal, etc.). Swpb (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    • WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Push-f (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @The-erinaceous-one:, I have revived my other proposal from language & to language and refined the domain of this proposal as you suggested. I agree that this makes sense ... I was conflating target form with action destination. --Push-f (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      This looks better, but I'm questioning whether "source of action" and "destination of action" are the best labels. Why not just use "source" and "destination" "action". — The Erinaceous One 🦔 01:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment I'm a bit confused as to the practical purpose of this set of qualifiers, since I don't really buy "it would be nice to be able to" as a valid motivation. Can you describe a situation where a statement like one of those you mention would actually matter to a Wikidata application, say a SPARQL query meant to identify a number of software components that could operate together in a command path suggested by an AI agent in response to a non-programmer's request for a tool to perform a particular task? I'm not asking you to code the entire query; just explain what essential information could be added using these qualifiers that couldn't be added otherwise (or that could be added in some awkward way for which this would offer a cleaner solution). Like I have asked previously; where is the problem desperately seeking this solution? --SM5POR (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment Another thing that bothers me is the simultaneous proposal of a diametrically opposed pair of qualifiers of the same type. This might indicate a binary relation either between two universally given objects (the "source" and the "destination"), for which a single qualifier stating the direction of the action ("A to B" or "B to A") would be sufficient, or (as in your examples) between two arbitrary objects within a larger set, including the same object in the case of a reflexive action ("local to local" or "remote to remote"). But what if the action doesn't have a clearly defined singular instance of each, such as an audio mixer board with multiple inputs and outputs, or a data stream processor taking instructions from a separate command input channel and sending log messages to a separate diagnostic output channel; could your qualifiers be used for those as well? --SM5POR (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      In other words, with only two object examples, remote host (Q115517047) and local host (Q115517044), using all of two qualifiers to describe their roles seems a bit excessive. What if there is a third role, distinct from those two? --SM5POR (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @SM5POR: FWIW, I've added some examples (with the proposer's go-ahead) of uses for these properties outside the domain of software. Swpb (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Note that the broader the domain of application is, the more arbitrary the definitions of "source" and "destination" (and "action applies to") will be, making it difficult to use them in a well-defined manner. Can you have either zero or more than two of each qualifier, or could two of the three qualifiers apply to the same object? Consider
      German reunification (Q56039)has part(s) (P527)political union (Q1140229)
      dissolution of the Soviet Union (Q5167679)has part(s) (P527)dissolution (Q5282797)
      What I mean is, what happened in reality is probably better understood in detail than these qualifiers describe, and its not even clear if the "source" is an active agent triggering the action or just a passive party to it. If you look at these items now, they already have all the elements mentioned in various claims. Why would an editor then prefer to use the less precise properties "action applies to", "source of action" and "destination of action"? To really understand this proposal, we ought to come up with even more varied examples than computer commands and political decisions, say cooking ("source" ingredients / "applies to" dinner / "destination" table), writing (mind / novel / publication), teaching (teacher / books / exam), harvest (fields / crops / food), theft (victim / jewelry / jail), marriage (date / wedding / family)... If you think my examples are arbitrary and inconsistent, that's exactly my point. If you can identify a single, obvious interpretation of what each qualifier refers to in every context covered by the proposal, then you have no imagination. SM5POR (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Here is an alternate way of expressing Example 5:
      Instead of expressing four values using four properties, it expresses six values using two properties. Additional roles can be created as needed without adding more properties. SM5POR (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As wide as the scope might be, it is not unlimited, and your examples are outside it. Political unions and dissolution are changes, but they are not "transfers" in in the way you're trying to express them. That's why your statements make no sense: in the second, you are saying that the Soviet Union (Q15180) was somehow "transferred" (it wasn't, it ceased to exist) "from" Belovezh Accords (Q76986) (this is a cause, not a source) to the successor states. That is not how these properties are meant to be used, and your ability to misuse them in this way doesn't convince me that such misuse is likely to be a problem. You could express a transfer of political power as: dissolution of the Soviet Union (Q5167679)has part(s) (P527)peaceful transition of power (Q100235323)source of actionSoviet Union (Q15180)destination of action[various succesor states]has immediate cause (P1478)Belovezh Accords (Q76986). There may be better ways to express that, but the point of the proposal is that some facts don't have a better way to express them: you can't well use participant (P710) and object has role (P3831) with scp (Q115516614) because local host (Q115517044) and remote host (Q115517047) are not a "person, group of people or organization", unless you're willing to expand participant (P710) to entities that lack agency. Swpb (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Swpb: I agree with SM5POR that the proposed property—as currently described—is likely to be (mis)used in ways other than transfers. Perhaps we could create constraints to indicate when the proposed property is misused, but it would be better to improve the proposal so that it is more clear what is being modeled. To that end, I propose that we change the label to "source of transfer" (or perhaps "origin of transfer") and "destination of transfer" if we are restricting the scope of the property only to transfers. (@Push-f: please also see my suggestion, here.) — The Erinaceous One 🦔 07:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    YES. "Source of transfer"/"destination of transfer" would go a long way to clarifying the scope. Let's make that change if Push-f approves. Swpb (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps confusing our respective arguments a bit, like Swpb I'm actually not that worried about potential misuse, but rather about the constraints implied by the suggested three-way "transfer" model (source/object/destination). Like Swpb has argued for a generic destination role property to replace various special-purpose properties such as "addressee", I'm arguing for a generic role property, which happens to exist in the form of object has role (P3831), to replace all three properties suggested here, letting the role be indicated by a unique Q-item rather than by a unique property. I admit also that participant (P710) isn't a particularly good label for a non-acting object, but a better one could easily be defined and substituted for it.
    Splitting the single statement with three or four qualifiers into three statements with one qualifier each has other advantages too, such as the ability to add more qualifiers and references to each object statement, rather than just to the monolithic transfer statement. What if either or both the seller and the buyer each have their own broker to negotiate their mutual real estate deal? We don't want more paired properties like from-broker and to-broker, from-date and to-date etc to deal with either side of the initial source/destination pair. SM5POR (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The separate statements model does offer more flexibility with qualifiers, but I see two problems with it. First is the already mentioned limits of participant (P710), and I'd like to see more specifics on handling that: if the solution is to expand participant (P710), we might get pushback, and if the solution is a different property, I'd like to know which one would work, or if a new one is needed. Second, by needing to qualify with object has role (P3831), it becomes impossible to specify the participants and their roles as qualifying statements, which is necessary if the transfer being discussed is the object of a main statement, rather than the subject item. In the present examples, these "participant" statements could reasonably be made about the subject item, but I don't think this is universally the case; I will try to come up with some examples when I get a little time. Swpb (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, good, I appreciate that, and I guess it was your open-ended extension "all sorts of transfers (physical, digital, legal etc)" combined with the rather extreme case of a real estate transaction that is the Alaska purchase which led my extrapolation astray thinking "political, intellectual, philosophical, viral" and so on. The word all is pretty dangerous to use in a discussion about abstractions of non-tangible items, when not qualified with examples of what is (paradoxically) not part of all.
    So that may leave "political transfers" off the table then? The Alaska purchase is (together with perhaps the Louisiana purchase) a fringe one-of-its-kind thing, being seen as either a transfer of political territory or a real estate deal, and shouldn't be allowed to dictate the natural limits of the "transfer" data model. Then we have transfers of power (political or electrical), transfer of color between textiles in the laundry process, the ironed transfer of decorations on a piece of garment etc. Are either of these included in your view of "transfer"?
    What I'm aiming at is this: Either you have an abstract idea of what constitutes a generic concept of transfer, be it transfer (Q1811518), transfer (Q88539105), transfer (Q23009675), interchange (Q7833995), transfer (Q3537483), transfer (Q1195816) or transfer (Q315364), or you rely on the lexical definition of "transfer" which includes all of the above (but not necessarily similar things that aren't typically labelled "transfer" in English, such as transport (Q7590), transmission (Q118093), transmission (mechanical device) (Q16259746), power transmission (Q3242194), electric power transmission (Q200928), travel (Q61509), move (Q56244401), relocation (Q2918584) and delivery (Q2334804), to name a few that may or may not be included in the first concept).
    While taking the first approach can be pretty tedious, requiring careful attention to detail, it's the preferred way of doing it, as the latter risks being applied differently depending on editor's native language, just like the confusion over the of (P642) prepositional qualifier shows.
    The problem isn't getting all these different kinds of "transfer" included in some item class and constraint definition, but rather making sure they can all use the same three-role action model prescribed by these properties (source/object/destination). It should work fairly well as long as we stick to physical items being transported from one place to another, but when we include also legal transfer of real estate (which has "seller" and "buyer" rather than "source" and "destination" as it doesn't actually move) or power transmission, things get a bit more complicated. Yet you have barely scratched the surface of the full set of actions that may benefit from these three properties SM5POR (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the purposes of these properties, I see "transfer" as covering all the above, including the items that are not usually labelled as such in English. I see a transfer as any action x where an item y is originally associated with an item A (a location, a person or organization, a data storage medium, ...) and becomes associated with an item B (while not necessarily becoming disassociated with A). That's a pretty broad scope, but I think it's one where the roles of x, y, A, and B (action, object of action, source, destination) are clear and consistent, even without constraining the type of the items involved (except for possibly the constraint that A and B be of the same type, if that's not self-evident). Swpb (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Strong support. There has long been a need to express general "source" and "destination" roles on Wikidata, and there are only a few domain-specific properties currently available to do so: (addressee (P1817), destination point (P1444), towards (P5051), target (P533), and their inverses. The proposed pair of properties would be natural parent properties for these, so that we can finally express the entities involved in any sort of transfer - physical, digital, legal, etc. Swpb (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    destination of action edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionqualifier to be used when the object of a statement is an action, to qualify what's the destination of the action
    Data typeItem
    Example 1see #source of action
    Example 2see #source of action
    Example 3see #source of action

    See #source of action for the motivation and discussion.

    ‎name version for other gender edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionuse for when names that are not given name or surnames are gendered (since those two have their own properties), would also be helpful for many noble titles and honorifics as well as affixes
    Data typeItem
    Example 1Julius (Q29871072)name version for other genderJulia (Q32979242)
    Example 2Augustus (Q211804)name version for other genderAugusta (Q765587)
    Example 3Lalo (Q86008935)name version for other genderLala (Q25222023)
    Example 4His Honor (Q119503299)name version for other genderHer Honour (Q119503247)
    Example 5Master (Q6784979)name version for other genderMiss (Q13359947)
    Example 6filia (Q121857838)name version for other genderfilius (Q121889388)
    Example 7Gaii liberta (Q121858309)name version for other genderGaii libertus (Q121889415)
    Planned useMainly anthroponym (Q10856962)s
    Expected completenessProbably never, people always come up with new names and titles
    See alsogiven name version for other gender (P1560) and surname for other gender (P5278)

    Motivation edit

    I think it would be good to be able to link more kinds of gendered names/titles than just the given name property and surname properties allow. At the moment there is an issue for how to handle Roman nomina, praenomina and cognomina, which did not work the same way as modern given names or family names do. This has been discussed on the talk page of the given name property before.StarTrekker (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    not subclass of edit

    not instance of edit

    Motivation edit

    The different from (P1889) property implies the two items could be confused for each other, according to its property constraints, while not would only be used when one item could be confused as being a subclass or instance of the value. It can be thought of as "this item is sometimes incorrectly thought to be a type of..."

    Adding this information will be useful for clearing up misconceptions when different from (P1889) isn't applicable, without adding it to the item's description. Open to suggestions on a different name. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 04:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    •  Comment such statements should just have a deprecated rank Deprecated rank with the reason for deprecated rank (P2241) qualifier, e.g. strawberry (Q14458220)subclass of (P279)berry (Q13184)reason for deprecated rank (P2241)misnomer (Q6875856). --Push-f (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Push-f: That works for strawberry maybe, but the others? There must be thousands of these, do we really want things like a deprecated tarantula hawk (Q10326375)subclass of (P279)hawk (Q846664) everywhere? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      There is absolutely no problem with having many deprecated statements spread across many items. I find deprecated statements to be vastly superior to a "not" property because of two reasons:
      1. It actually tells you which statement specifically should not be made.
      2. It is a value of the actual property, which means it will be more likely found and considered by humans and bots adding values to the respective property.
      You do realize that we have over 1,500 properties of the Item datatype? Should we have to create an "not X" property for every property "X" just to express that this statement does not apply? Surely not.
      I have not seen a single reason why we should not use the deprecated rank for what it is intended to be used.
      --Push-f (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I would prefer having subclass and instance not together in this property but rather have either one of them or both of them as separate properties. ChristianKl❫ 21:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      My name for it was simply "not" but it was changed. There are probably a lot less instance cases than subclasses. I'd be fine with making them separate properties if others agree. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 21:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @ChristianKl: Done! -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Support @Push-f I don't like using rank of statement because a depreciated rank does not mean that the statement is not valid. If it does, you would need to specify it with reason for deprecated rank (P2241). This is bad for data consumers because then they have to filter out statements when querying through classes that don't have a particular reason for deprecated rank (P2241) qualifier. That's really annoying to do. If a statement is present on an item, it should mean that statement is at least partially true at least some of the time. So, subclass of (P279) statements should be actual superclasses of the class. I'm for this property because it actually separates classes that are not superclasses and ones that are (ones in subclass of (P279)). Lectrician1 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Conditional support Fair enough. I can get behind this proposal if it is split up into two properties "not instance of" and "not subclass of" ... this way we can actually properly link the properties together via negates property . --Push-f (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Push-f I don't think that's needed. Technically, "subclass of" and "instance of" have a parent property called "is of class". This property would be the negation of that property. To handle cases like these where we don't have an actual superproperty, I've been thinking about proposing a "subproperty of item" property that would allow us to make superproperties as items without actually creating them as properties. Then we could make is not of classnegates item propertyis of class (of course, we'd need a "negates item property" as well to do this). Lectrician1 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I can rename it to "is not of class" or split them, I'm fine with either. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      What are you talking about? Such a "is of class" property does not exist and neither do I see any reason why it should. And no I don't think we should needlessly complicate the negation situation. --Push-f (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I decided to split them for negates property, but I need another example for instance of. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I added another example. Btw. I don't get the first example of "not instance of" ... I don't think that's something that should be stated on every thing that has a 3 in its title. --Push-f (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      We may need an item for "third instance of a series", but Goat Simulator 3 is actually just the second one and there is no Goat Simulator 2. Perhaps not necessary but it is a confusing name which the property aims to clarify. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      "is of class" property does not exist
      @Push-f It semantically does though. Maurice Theodore James (Q19337600) and human (Q5) are of class mammal (Q110551885), are they not? Lectrician1 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I don't think so. One is an instance of the class and another one is a subclass of the class. You know what else can be "of a class"? Opposites. There are opposites of a class, should they also be subproperties of "of a class"? Surely not. It just doesn't make any sense. --Push-f (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I don't think so. One is an instance of the class and another one is a subclass of the class
      But they are both under the same class. The only reason they are separate properties is is so that one can indicates its entity is an instance while the other indicates that its entity is a class.
      You know what else can be "of a class"? Opposites. There are opposites of a class, should they also be subproperties of "of a class"? Surely not. It just doesn't make any sense.
      Can you elaborate and give an example? Lectrician1 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Oppose; use ranks instead —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @MisterSynergy did you see my comment about ranks in my support vote? Lectrician1 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yes I have. However:
      • Ranking can be considered as a visibility controller. If you query the right way, you do not get any claims with deprecated rank in the results (and otherwise you would need to filter for them anyways).
      • The (deprecated) rank itself does not have a particular semantic and it can be used for several scenarios. We use the reason for deprecated rank (P2241) qualifier to denote why a claim in question needs deprecated rank, and "incorrect value" is a perfect use case for this one.
      If we separate into "subclass of" and "not subclass of" (and similarly for P31), it would not need much time and we will see both properties with identical values on the same item page; pretty much as we see a lot of misuse of P279/P31 claims with identical values, even though they are always displayed right next to each other. The ranking system is much better suited for this problem in my opinion. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I brought this up before, but does a deprecated tarantula hawk (Q10326375)subclass of (P279)hawk (Q846664) really seem appropriate? This property can also negate parent classes that may have been inherited in the subclass tree. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Ranking can be considered as a visibility controller. If you query the right way, you do not get any claims with deprecated rank in the results (and otherwise you would need to filter for them anyways).
      Could you make an example query you are suggesting people use that would avoid depreciated statements with whatever reason for deprecated rank (P2241) you want to use? For example, a query that gets all the direct subclasses of all music genres while avoiding whatever depreciated subclass of (P279) statement you will use? Lectrician1 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The first example in "not instance of" doesn't make sense to me. Of course Goat Simulator 3 (Q112435648) is not an instance of third (Q28469713), because third (Q28469713) is not something that can have any instances of it. --99of9 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Fixed with threequel (Q115768274). -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Oppose per MisterSynergy. Per Help:Ranking, "deprecated rank is used for statements that are known to include errors (i.e. data produced by flawed measurement processes, inaccurate statements) or that represent outdated knowledge (i.e. information that was never correct, but was at some point thought to be)." I think Lectrician1's understanding of rank is faulty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      way too broad. everything is not an instance of almost everything else. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Everything doesn't have almost every quality, or have almost every part. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Oppose Too broad, no limit on usage. If a statement does not exist, well then it should be assumed it is not true. For these reasons I'm against all "not" properties. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Support. I need this very property for a different reason. Math students often want to find a counterexample to the claim of the form "All A is B". We have nilpotent group (Q1755242) which is a subclass of solvable group (Q759832) but not "solvable group that is not nilpotent". This is fine. But we're not confident when we meet statements like Sym(3)instance of (P31)solvable group (Q759832) to conclude that Sym(3) is not nilpotent – maybe the claim is just not made sharp enough. A statement like Sym(3)not instance ofnilpotent group (Q1755242) would clarify the answer. I agree in many cases it is better to use instance of (P31) statement with deprecated rank, but there is some other cases as I described, where it is a pure and notable fact that something does not belong to something else, we should have a "not instance of" statement with normal rank. 慈居 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I added an example to explain why I need this property. The Sorgenfrey line (Q117921997) is by no means a second-countable space (Q1363919) and it has never been considered one. This is better than the rank solution considering how it is confusing otherwise when we add qualifiers such as
      慈居 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    officially recognized by edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionwhich jurisdiction or international non-governmental organization officially recognizes the subject
    Data typeItem
    Allowed valuesitems which are instances of administrative division (Q56061) or international non-governmental organization (Q1194093)
    Example 1rights
    Example 2sovereignties
    Example 3religions
    Example 4atrocities

    Motivation edit

    Whether or not a country recognizes specific rights, sovereignties, religions or atrocities can have huge implications on the lives of people (or animals in the case of animal rights).

    Wikipedia already has several articles that give an overview over the situations by countries (e.g. w:LGBT rights by country or territory, w:Animal rights by country or territory, w:Scientology status by country). I think it would be great if we had that data in Wikidata.

    I suggest the following property constraints:

    Suggested English aliases:

    • is officially recognized by / is not officially recognized by
    • is recognized by / is not recognized by
    • recognized by / not recognized by
    • legally recognized by / not legally recognized by
    • is legally recognized by / is not legally recognized by

    --Push-f (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit