Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

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

See also

• Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending – properties which have been approved but which are on hold waiting for the appropriate datatype to be made available
• Wikidata:Properties for deletion – proposals for the deletion of properties
• Wikidata:External identifiers – statements to add when creating properties for external IDs
• Wikidata:Lexicographical data – information and discussion about lexicographic data on Wikidata

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list. 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. Select the right datatype for the property. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section. Creating the property Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator. See steps when creating properties.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2021/02.

Politics/election

• Please review Wikidata:WikiProject every politician before proposing. Ping members of project using {{Ping project|every politician}}

counterpart position (alias: shadows OR opposite number)

   Under discussion

Description	ruling party position which this opposition political party position is the counterpart of or shadows
Represents	tailing (Q47436102)
Data type	Item
Allowed values	position (Q4164871)
Example 1	Shadow Attorney General for England and Wales (Q23674385) → Attorney General for England and Wales (Q2631987)
Example 2	Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Q7460596) → Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Q3397406)
Example 3	Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Q25906187) → Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Q162754)
Example 4	Leader of the Opposition (Q2741536) → Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Q14211)
Source	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Opposition_Shadow_Cabinet_(United_Kingdom)
Planned use	to add to all shadow cabinet positions, indicating what position is responsible for shadowing another goverenment position
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)

Motivation

My motivation is to make the link clearer between the government offices and opposition offices PoliceSheep99 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment Is this peculiar to the UK, or is it common in other countries (or is there perhaps a more general label that would apply more broadly)? Ah, I see en:Shadow Cabinet lists some other countries it applies or may apply to. Well, this is obviously better than using something totally generic like opposite of (P461), but I'm not entirely convinced yet... ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree with ArthurPSmith. This would be a good relationship to encode, the trouble is what to call it more generically, to allow eg relations like (U.S) House Minority Leader -> House Majority Leader, etc. Something like "governing party counterpart" seems a step closer, except we might want the property to also encode the reverse relationship, eg Government minister -> shadow minister. A search for "leader of the opposition" finds a lot of examples, also at eg state levels as well as country levels, so I think this property could have quite wide scope, given the right label. Jheald (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• @PoliceSheep99, Jheald: Maybe "counterpart position"? With "shadows" as an alias? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support "counterpart position", with aliases like "opposite number" etc., and the understanding that this is for direct political counterpart roles only, and not for more general understandings of "counterpart position" or "opposite number" such as eg more general correspondences between roughly equivalent roles in different countries, or in other contexts. If we want something for relationships like that it should be a different property. But support for this property, with this specific meaning. Jheald (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I adjusted the label and description, do these seem ok now? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)--PoliceSheep99 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

ChristianKl Oravrattas Tagishsimon Jacksonj04 Owenpatel Markcridge Louisecrow Nomen ad hoc Tubezlob Siwhitehouse Mhl20 Alexsdutton Danadl Teester Zache a_ka_es Hasive Nat965 masti Papuass Jklamo ProtoplasmaKid Jmmuguerza Graemebp Pete Forsyth Jelabra Rfitzel Davidpar Canley Bodhisattwa CYAN Masssly MJL tdombos salgo60 Daniel Mietchen Lefcentreright Pedropaulovc Shahadusadik ミラP Xaris333 BrokenSegue M2545 Gnoeee DrThneed Mathieu Kappler Data Gamer Notified participants of WikiProject every politician --PoliceSheep99 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

number of signatories

   Under discussion

Description	number of persons who signed a given petition, initiative, referendum, or other large scale proposal/request
Data type	Quantity
Allowed values	>100
Allowed units	none
Example 1	MISSING
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING

Motivation

While we have several properties to describe proposals that have actually been formally voted on, we lack the above for what is generally the preceding steps. Please help complete with a few representative samples. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 12:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Organization

See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending for approved items awaiting the deployment of currently unavailable datatypes

menu items

   Under discussion

Description	menu items served by this item
Represents	menu (Q658274)
Data type	Item
Domain	restaurant (Q11707), restaurant chain (Q18534542), bar (Q187456), main course (Q772630), entrée (Q6545590), drink (Q40050), dessert (Q182940), side dish (Q3688975), appetizer (Q1628963), etc.
Allowed values	dish (Q746549), drink (Q40050),
Example 1	McDonald’s (Q38076) → Big Mac (Q506796)
Example 2	Taco Bell (Q752941) → Pepsi (Q47719)
Example 3	Docking Bay 7 Food and Cargo (Q67087828) → Braised Shaak Roast (Q67088571)
Example 4	Docking Bay 7 Food and Cargo (Q67087828) → Smoked Kaadu Ribs (Q67412028)
See also	product or material produced (P1056), cuisine (P2012), typically sells (P7163), schema:hasMenuItem

Motivation

We seem to be missing a place to put menu items. A similar property was proposed before, but the suggested solutions do not seem to completely fit. We could use product or material produced (P1056) but, a menu might include Pepsi (Q47719), which is not something a subject produces. We could use cuisine (P2012), but this property seems to be specific to kinds of cuisine rather than specific items. We could use typically sells (P7163) but again, this property seems to be about kinds of products, rather than the products themselves. Though the definition of any of these could be expanded. Lastly, has part (P527) could be used, which is what I have been using, but it seems kind of odd that the parts of a restaurant chain (Q18534542) are its menu items... but maybe that makes sense? I would appreciate a more definitive answer of how we want to relate these things. If none of these are suitable, then I recommend that we create this property (or one like it). U+1F360 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Sebleouf
Teolemon
Vladimir Alexiev
Ash_Crow
d1g
Dhx1
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Gobonobo
Ainali
Notified participants of WikiProject Food

•  Comment @U+1F360: I recommend changing the name to something like "specialty food." For example, McDonald's menu contains not only burgers but also cola and other foods. In China, they also contain Chinese food. So this property name may not be suitable. --Catherine Laurence ^discussion 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Catherine Laurence: that is intentional (see Example 2). It should be a reflection of the items on the menu (that are sourced). U+1F360 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• The description should be more specific. If it's applied to a restaurant chain it should specify that all individual restaurants of the chain serve the given food. I'm not sure whether we can hold items for individual restaurants up to date in a meaningful way given that there are lots of different restaurants. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm struggling to see how this could be useful. Menu items can be potentially numerous and change all the time. There would be a lot of work involved in getting this information on Wikidata, and what would be the gain? NMaia (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

IP address or range

   On hold

Description	single IP address or range of IP addresses
Represents	IP address (Q11135)
Data type	IP address (phab:T235389)-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Domain	organization (Q43229),
Example 1	University of Oxford (Q34433) → 2001:630:440::/44
Example 2	Wikimedia Foundation (Q180) → 198.35.26.0/23
Example 3	Johns Hopkins University (Q193727) → 128.220.0.0/16
Example 4	University of Chicago (Q131252) → 2a03:b600:640::/107
Planned use	Move existing values of IPv4 routing prefix (P3761) and IPv6 routing prefix (P3793) into the new field
See also	IPv4 routing prefix (P3761) and IPv6 routing prefix (P3793)

Motivation

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T235389

I would like to make a tool in toolforge that will allow a user to input an IP address and get the organization (Q43229) associated for that IP address. Unfortunately, you cannot query a range unless you have the start and end of that range. Based on the discussion in the previous proposal it seems best that a new datatype would be created for this property, one that extends from Quantity. Then organizations will be able to be queried by the IP address. U+1F360 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• After the property is created, the old properties should be deprecated. Once all of the data has been migrated, the old properties can be removed. U+1F360 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 04:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment if you want to make a tool anyway, then I suggest you do the indexing there. Looking at the Phabricator ticket, there is not a huge appetite for deploying a dedicated datatype for this. − Pintoch (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Trade (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

corporate domicile

   Under discussion

Description	legal home of a corporation. Alias: place of incorporation, statutory seat
Data type	Item
Domain	administrative entity
Example 1	Finnkino (Q5450883) → Helsinki (Q1757)
Example 2	Please add more examples
Example 3	MISSING
Source	Please help locate a reliable source to be kept in the definition.
Planned use	record corporate domicile / place of incorporation for current and historical companies
See also	location of formation (P740), headquarters location (P159), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)

Motivation

This is an essential property in recording data about organisations.

"Place of incorporation" is currently given as an alias to location of formation (P740). The domicile may be changed, and location of formation (P740) is no longer a valid choice for the new location.

It is distinguishable from tax residence (Q1473701), which should have it's own property created. enwp: "Domicile is, in common law jurisdictions, a different legal concept to residence, though the two may lead to the same result."

The headquarters location (P159) may be different from the corporate domicile / place of incorporation.

Please help complete the proposal! Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Franzsimon Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 User:zuphilip MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Kristbaum Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler Notified participants of WikiProject Companies – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why corporate domicile over place of incorporation?ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If the concept is the same it does not matter which is primary. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Susannaanas: It does matter how we name our properties. There's a good chance that we will be stuck with the label for a lot of time. Part of a property proposal discussion is to pick the best possible name for a property. Given that a lot of our properties follow the schema place of X, place of incorporation feels to me a bit superior to corporate domicile.ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support We could use improvements like this in corporate metadata, thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - PKM (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Question is this the same as registered office (Q65616986)? - PKM (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as I understand and reading the description in enwiki– correct me if I am wrong – I would say that the proposed property is the permanent domicile of the company, which can in some jurisdictions have an additional registered office (Q65616986). Some other jurisdictions require they must be the same. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Use headquarters location (P159) David (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I almost agree, but I think the use of headquarters location (P159) should be more strictly defined to serve this need. We will need the juridical home of a company, and I have a gut feeling that headquarters could be located outside the registered municipality. But if this is not the case, the property should be reconsidered. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Trying to summarize my understanding of close matches, please comment!
    • "Place of incorporation", "Statutory seat", "Corporate domicile", (possibly headquarters location (P159))
    • headquarters location (P159), tax residence (Q1473701), registered office (Q65616986)
    • location of formation (P740), possibly also "Place of incorporation"

Some cleanup is needed. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Question Could someone show a model of all these properties for an example case to see how it would work? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• I will withdraw this and use headquarters location (P159). If there will be need for more distinction, the idea can be revisited later. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Till now I stumbled over ~20 German Nonprofits where "corporate domicile / Sitz" and "headquarters location / Geschäftsstelle / Hauptverwaltung" differ.
•  Support, preferring primary name "place of incorporation" Daask (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support but somebody should fill out with a couple more examples! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Question Why not use and build upon siège social (Q7533476) or seat (Q470540)? Johanricher (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment @Susannaanas, ArthurPSmith, ChristianKl, Daask: I found this proposal after building a structure that I think is enough to solve the problem explained. Basically it consists to have one headquarters location (P159) for each HQ (not branch office (Q1880737) nor those cover by subsidiary (P355)) gathering all the information as qualifiers as described in Wikidata:WikiProject Companies/Properties. It, optionally, may include location (P276) when it has a "HQ building", that may have their own properties for some or all of the qualifiers that describe HQ, making unnecessary them, in this case. In addition, to assign the type of HQ it is (corporate, operational, campus, etc.) I use object has role (P3831) as a qualifier of each entry of P159. You can see two real cases in this university and its campus or this club with HQ in no specific P276 and the sports complex (not the home venue (P115)) with a specific item. Your comments will be wellcome. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

   Comment @Amadalvarez: I think you have come up with a good solution for the issue described on this page of how to model different types of corporate headquarters. Nice work. I still think it's worthwhile to have separate properties rather than the qualifier for headquarters location (P159). In the meantime, I think your solution is acceptable.

  Regarding your examples:

  1. For a university and its campus, I'd probably create separate items that are instances of university campus (Q30785519), then link them with part of (P361) and has part (P527) to University of Valencia (Q383568). I don't think headquarters location (P159) is the right property for describing university campus locations. Daask (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. For the club, I'm not sure what you were going for with FC Barcelona (Q7156) headquarters location (P159) Sant Joan Despí (Q15640) / object has role (P3831) Ciudad Deportiva (Q3678673) since Ciudad Deportiva (Q3678673) instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410).

  Daask (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2020(UTC)

Thanks, @Daask: for your answer. In the campus case, I avoid to use P527 because it's a multi-use property and we may have conflicts with some other use/meaning. In the university it use to contain the faculties, it is, the studies concept, not physical location of them that may be or not included within a campus. To me, campus is the space, the continent of faculties, libraries, residence, etc.

Regarding Q3678673, is certainly a mistake. The label of this item is exactly the name we use to denominate this venue, but I did not see that is a description only used in spanish, not a common concept. So I change it by sports complex (Q7579839) closer to the concept of "ciudad deportiva", which includes not only sport arees but also residence and school for youth teams.

If later this proposal is re-opened, I hope someone may ping me in order to apply the changes we decided. Thanks, again. Amadalvarez (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

banned in/from

   Under discussion

Description	excluded / prohibited -- illegal / illicit / forbidden -- [in (place), at (time), by (agent)]
Represents	!permitted in /better representation of one element of the odd property dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) (which has type constraints currently making it impossible to add to e.g. slavery (Q8463))
Data type	Item
Template parameter	none
Domain	item
Allowed values	pre-existing item
Example 1	chewing gum (Q130878) → Singapore (Q334) (qual: point in time)
Example 2	Daily Mail (Q210534) → English Wikipedia (Q328) (qual: point in time)
Example 3	alcoholic beverage (Q154) → mosque (Q32815)
Example 4	sandal (Q131704) / clog (Q167633) / shoe (Q22676) → Hindu temple (Q842402)
Example 5	blasphemy (Q200481) → Alsace-Moselle (Q2840162) (qual = until / end 22/12/2015)
Example 6	slavery (Q8463) → Qatar (Q846) (qual = date = April 10, 1952 = 16th Rajab 1371)
Example 7	serfdom (Q103350) → Austrian Partition (Q129794) (qual = date = 16 April 1848)
Example 8	benfluorex (Q421695) → France (Q142) (qual = date = November 2009) (reference)
Example 9	English Wikipedia (Q328) → Turkey (Q43) (qual = inception + end)
Example 10	Ulysses (Q6511) → United States of America (Q30) endtime = 1933
Example 11	Ulysses (Q6511) → United Kingdom (Q145) endtime = 1936
Planned use	very generally useful

Motivation

I'm not sure this is exactly in the right place, as this is a general property of diverse items.

It seems strange that we cannot say that chewing gum is/was banned from Singapore, clogs from temples, alcohol from mosques, the Daily Mail, the Sun, Breitbart (and soon RT) from en.wp. Of course some of these should probably have time qualifiers (targeted immigration bans, COVID travel bans...) This is a more willful version of "excluded from" which I also didn't see in the pre-existing properties. Now it might make more sense to exclude the preposition but then we would need to have "in" / "from" & "by"... which gets trickier. Moreover it's not clear to me that saying that chewing gum was banned by Goh Chok Tong would be overly interesting. Hope I've filled this out correctly. SashiRolls (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: in terms of adding landing sites for further enrichment (other semantic roles), a bot could be written to create a page Ban of Qx from Qy item for every instance of Qx (has property banned from Qy). (The opposite might also be true, but first the property needs to be created.) SashiRolls (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment this doesn't feel quite like the right way to model this, though I agree some approach to recording such relationships would be useful. Maybe there should be an item for each of these ("ban of x from y") which captures all the relevant data about the proscription? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• My intuition is with ArthurPSmith. Apart from that it might be misleading to use banned to describe the relationship of EnWiki and Daily Mail. The judgement of that RfC is a complex one that says that the Daily Mail can't be used as reliable source which is not a blanket ban. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the problem of en.wp's "deprecations" raises interesting questions. Reliable sources talk about "bans", while RS/N (as I insisted on the Daily Mail TP some months ago) talks about a "deprecation". In practice this is playing on words, because in general once outlets like the Sun and Breitbart have been banned / "deprecated" a removal campaign is begun (and the outlets are sometimes even added to the black list as Breitbart was). In other words, don't be fooled by the clever lingo: it is a ban, though exceptions can be argued for.

  In terms of ontology, the idea of changing a relation like Qx has p(banned in Qy) to an event like ban (cf. block (Q2125156)) has (p of chewing gum (Q130878)) has (p from Singapore (Q334)) strikes me as wrong-headed confusing because for the information to be noted on the original data"card" (here chewing gum (Q130878))) would involve all sorts of pirouettes. The proposal is much more straightforward as written IMO. (otherwise we'd be creating convoluted/overwrought/unresolved NPs (noun expansion) as stand-alone cards for events, if I've understood correctly. For information, this suggestion was created after looking into WikiLambda... whose goal seems to be to encode such relators (prepositions and verbs are basically relators).

  I do agree banned from is probably better than banned in (but that is cosmetic). Similarly "banned" could be created at the same time as "banned from" if an "event" reading rather than a "has property" reading is wanted, but as I said above, I'm not sure that Goh Chok Tong banning chewing gum is overly interesting. (bans would be better for the reciprocal relation, where it exists...

  Alternately I see that there is a property: does not have property, which could be combined with "permitted in", though that latter property (permitted in) also does not yet exist. SashiRolls (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  If you have a law/RfC that bans something, I think it would be better to have an item for the law/Rfc and then has a statement "bans X" and one for the jurisdiction in which the law applies. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Why? SashiRolls (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  @SashiRolls: Wikidata only allows limited data attached to a statement - in particular qualifiers cannot have their own qualifiers. By "reifying" a statement of an event/action etc. into its own item you can have a much richer description, which is what seems needed here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm still stumped. In the examples above only one qualifier was used, though I can see that if you wanted to specify when something was banned and who banned it you would need double qualification (or two properties, banned in place & banned by agent)

  benfluorex (Q421695) has the property (banned in France (Q142)... qualifier: O° as medicine 1° since November, 2009). (ref-url)

  You suggest making an item Q99999999 (Ban of medical use of benfluorex in France). Interesting. What further steps would then be necessary to connect that new item to the pre-existing data item benfluorex (Q421695), which is the main subject of Q999999999, and which is the data item that has the property banned in France (Q142) that it would be good to know about.. I'm just curious how your proposal would end up being written onto the data item needing further description... ? What query could then be written to find all medications/chemical compounds banned in France in 2009? I appreciate the time you are taking to understand my question. This is perhaps a more pressing example than those above since Wikidata is telling people that benfluorex (Q421695) is a medication at the moment without mentioning it doesn't seem to be approved anywhere?-- SashiRolls (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  @SashiRolls: So I think a somewhat analogous case would be seasons of sports leagues - for example 2006–07 Fußball-Bundesliga (Q27896). That is an intermediate item between the sports team and the league for a particular year. You can easily query for the linkages - for example all seasons connecting teams and leagues here. Is this what you're asking for? ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  

  basic semantic triple model

  @ArthurPSmith:: Why don't you do what I asked rather than providing what you think might be "a somewhat analogous case"?

  (season is not a predicate of sports team) <-- actually, it probably is... but one which requires its own table in a traditional db. (sashi / 19 May 00:08ish)

  (banned in France is a predicate of benfluorex)...

  I have created the requested item so that you can show me how it is less kludgy than a direct statement of the property on the appropriate item (benfluorex): Ban of Mediator in France (Q94603373) I've provided all the references you need there for the item. Could you provide a SPARQL query now showing all the medications banned in France in 2009? What further steps did you need to take in order to make that happen? (At the moment nothing indicates (on the ban page) that Médiator is a medicine, for example... You get that "for free" by adding banned in Q142 as a property to benfluorex (Q421695))

  -- SashiRolls (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  No I'm not suggesting making an item called "Ban of medical use of benfluorex in France". There's likely a regulatory act that produced the ban. A regulatory act that has an inherent name. The regulatory act also has a bunch of interesting meta-data.

Blasphemy might be banned in 1000s of locations. Adding 1000s of statements to a single item is bad for Wikidata. There also might be 1000s of things that are banned in a given location. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just think of dry counties... I'm sorry that the RW Wikidata tries to represent is messy. :) SashiRolls (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Structurally this is not that dissimilar to educated at (P69) (past participle + preposition). While we could create Education of Qx at Qy items (by bot) which could then be enriched with all sorts of ancillary info (thesis adviser, subjects studied, degree obtained, matriculation date, praise in Latin, etc.), that wasn't done for the predicate "educated at". Why follow a different tack here? SashiRolls (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's structurally very dissimilar. I know of no person who's educated at (P69) at 100 universities. On the other hand if you just count the countries that have banned slavery you can easily go over a hundred. At the same token you can also find hundred (likely even more) things that are banned in a given country. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hm... My claim was that it was "not that structurally dissimilar": (past participle + preposition), not that the content (or number of members) was the same. At the moment, can you provide a list of the dates slavery was banned in all states using Wikidata? If so, how? If not, why not? I notice slavery (Q8463) currently has 43 identifiers... I look forward to reading your improved proposal for representing the data on this page. You might want to look at Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Q175613) with its signatories too in terms of your concerns about multiple statements. That item mentions "abolition" or "ban" only in the label. Its main subject "slavery in the United States", fails to capture the (effect / main subject) of the 13th amendment... How, @ChristianKl:, would you improve on this unsatisfactory representation? Keep in mind that this is just one case of the predicative relationship (property = banned (in Qy)). (Here is a more transient example (similar to "dry counties" above because of the embedded predicative relationship (sale of)). Here is another.) SashiRolls (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• When it comes to database modeling structure a N:1 relationship is structurally dissimilar to a 1:N relationship. If we would ignore database engineering concerns and only look at the ontological relationship when creating Wikidata properties, that would hugely damage Wikidata.

The 13th amendment could have a statement with P:newProperty:bans slavery (Q8463) applies to jurisdiction (P1001) United States of America (Q30). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, we seem to be making progress. 1 person is educated at N schools (secondary school, undergrad, masters, phd, law school, med school, etc.), and 1 THEME is banned in 1-N places (by 0-N texts). Reworking it for the verb (ban) rather than the past participle (banned), as I think you seem to prefer, we also have [0-N texts ban(s) 1-N themes in 1-N places] (e.g. city ordinance + federal law ban smoking in federal buildings). Am I following you? (I'm not sure why you mentioned the standard db structure test). Of course, we often won't have the name of a text banning many THEMEs. The example of Benfluorex is an example... the Lancet article I cited above doesn't mention the name of any regulatory text. For the story of alcohol being banned in mosques, or sandals being banned in Hindu temples, I'm not sure there is a specific hadith or Hindu sutra that does the banning (there may be, or the ban on alcohol may be derived from the general proscription of alcohol as haram, and the ban on sandals may be derived from the general cultural practice that you don't wear shoes inside in Asia). Thoughts? Also do you have another example of a property that is an active form of a verb as your proposed "bans" is above? SashiRolls (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether something is an active form of a verb is irrelevant (how the English language models the relationship is not a reason). For the purposes of Wikidata database performance 5 is 1 and not N in terms of database complexity. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't understand what you mean when you say 5 is 1 and not N. Could you explain what you mean by that, please? SashiRolls (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Second, it seems to me a very distinct semantic role is added by the active voice.

If we model the predicative relation on the active voice (bans) we need to have an item for the agent (or the text produced by agents with standing to ban).

If we model the predicative relation on the participle/adjective + prep (banned in), you don't need to have an item for the agent (Qz), just for the patient/theme Qx (what is banned) and the place (Qy) where it is banned.

Of course nothing prevents us from creating both an active property (agent, patient, place, date) and a passive property (patient, place, (date)). It's true that this is clearer (that both could be created) than in the case of educated / educated at. (Did Zellig Harris (alone) educate Chomsky at MIT? Did University of Edinburgh (alone) educate JK Rowling?, ...)

Finally there is the problem of Qx banned from Qn (activity), that could dangerously end up on DLP. (e.g. player banned from (playing in) league due to testing positive for anabolic steroids) SashiRolls (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's alright if you don't understand anything about database modeling, but then how defering to what people who do understand on it?

The cost of an edit is proportional to the size of the edited item. As far as your 'second' goes, Wikidata is currently at capacity for the amount of edits that it can do. Your proposal (for educate) might result in halving the amount of edits that can be done per day on Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not make any proposal about "educate". I pointed out that it was not logical to create it. As for the rest, see your talk page, please.SashiRolls (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

While waiting for the property creators to wave their wiki-wands, I've created this (beginning of a ) workaround based on the suggestions above. I've added this to a couple other entries (Emancipation reform of 1861 (Q1192212) & Slave Trade Act (Q7539168)). Now what shall we do for example 6 above (Qatar)? Create an item for the obscurely-named FO 371/98464? I assume this is a UK Foreign Office file, since it is owned by the National Archive. It is not the original text of the proclamation, but a translation... SashiRolls (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobody suggested using instance of (P31) here and adding it just because there's no property that you like isn't how to go about it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised disappointed to see an administrator removing a solution that works. I imagine you will explain your reason for removing a working solution and either provide a better one or restore the working one... SashiRolls (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

See also: https://w.wiki/RaN SashiRolls (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We have a policy for property proposals that centers around new solutions to model content being decided by property proposals. Having a community decision for a given solution means that outside parties can rely on that solution existing in the future and that works within the framework of Wikidata without causing problems. As admin it's part of my role to prevent people from trying to circumvent policies. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:: Please stop assuming bad faith. From the point of view of someone trying to find simple ways of extending Wikidata's descriptive power this really feels like an admin lording their power without doing the intellectual modeling work... Here, I asked you a question about the banned book (Q65770793) item made by another person in July of 2019 (shortly before its dominating class banned work (Q66475652) was created by a different person. Both of these items have since been edited by the same administrator in September of last year, which leads me to believe nobody has found anything intrinsically wrong with them. I'm afraid you didn't look carefully enough at the example to see the real problem (I'm really not sure what could have confused you regarding end time (P582).) Try looking again. Also, as I said on your talk page, you may find some ideas for your concerns about your "authorization of subject" property proposal in the ODRL 2.1 prohibited / permitted modules for DRM I added for you to look at. SashiRolls (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I have created a list of all the items (banned books, works, objects, etc.), classes, and properties I've turned up so far in this effort to improve WikiData's power to describe bans. There is also a bit of feedback on the experience farther up on the same page. Any property creators willing to put on their magic hats, yet? What still needs discussion? Active voice versus passive voice, still? SashiRolls (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not confident this is the right way to model this and the tone in this discussion suggests we aren't going to get to a productive conclusion here. There are subtleties this proposal ignores (is the ban of slavery the same kind of ban as of sandals? are sandals banned in mosques or is it the wearing of sandals?). I would prefer we link the banning to the "act" that does the banning but I do see that that wouldn't always be easy. The arguments about wikidata DB load to me seem hollow without some kind of reference to a developer statement. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @BrokenSegue: It would be nice if we would have perfomance implication well documented so that it's easy to link them. Just because they are not well documented however doesn't change that they are important for the functioning of Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Support I agree there isn't one best way, but for now it is adding valuable information Germartin1 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Germartin1: Given that properties are supposed to be persistent in the future "for now" is a bad argument. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment As another example of how banning/blocking has been modelled in the past, refer to MDK (Q15889126)'s use of significant event (P793). --Dhx1 (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose. "very generally useful" is not a usecase. This proposal is too broad, statements with this property will be unclear and not useful at all due to ambiguity of word "ban". For example, Sci-hub is added to global spam list in Wikimedia projects, does this mean that Sci-hub is banned by Wikidata? Also, examples given in proposal are not expressive enough to be correct. Singapore (Q334) is sometimes allowed in chewing gum (Q130878), blasphemy (Q200481) is generally not recommended in many places, but again, with exceptions we can not express with qualifiers. There is an alternative proposal Wikidata:Property_proposal/blocked on the territory of for web-resources. It has very concrete usecase. --Lockal (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose use prohibits (P8739). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I was very pleased that the above proposal for an active voice "prohibits" was created in November 2020 using my example of the 13th amendment above. I see that we still have a proliferation of nominalisations of a basic predicative relationship:

• banned object: https://w.wiki/puP (0 instances) (created Aug 2019)
• banned work: https://w.wiki/puR (1 instance: Daily Mail) (created Aug 2019)
• banned book: https://w.wiki/puR (1 instance: Ulysses) (created July 2019)

If we are meant to pursue this practice of adding a nominalisation (banned practice, banned person, banned medication, banned religion, etc.), and then using the "instance of" property to find these items, I suppose that could work. My question: is there an easy way to automate retrieval of the *.wp pages of, say, "censored books" (166 members) and add "instance of banned book" to those entities, or do these things need to be done manually (to add qualifiers like dates, jurisdictions, etc.)

I assume this is a better solution than creating two pages for the laws that banned and then unbanned, say, (parts of) Les Fleurs du Mal in France, or multiple page for the town counsels/high schools which have banned Slaughterhouse Five?

I see too that the property "prohibits" wasn't linked to the entity "slavery" on the wikidata page for the 13th amendment. I still think it is a mistake to prioritize the active voice over the passive voice... I do agree that we can drop "in" from "banned in" since the qualifier "applies to jurisdiction" covers "in". However, the passive voice is as, if not more, useful than the active voice. That has not changed. SashiRolls (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but based on the example given in "prohibits" we'll need to search for items that have the property "prohibits" linked to the entity slavery in order to pull the start date out of the law banning slavery in order to make a list of the dates when slavery was abolished and the places where it was abolished? SashiRolls (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No, "instance of" is not meant to be used that way. If there are two laws, then yes that means item that legalizes it again can use prohibits (P8739). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please explain. I would have thought Joyce's Ulysses was an instance of a banned book. SashiRolls (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It mixes attributes of how the book relates to other entites into instance of (P31) while there's no suggestion that this should happen on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making my suggested edit to the 13th Amendment page ( § ). Your mention of a "mixture" is due to the fact that "banned" is a predicative relationship, I think. Now that you've deleted the collaborative work on Ulysses ( § ), how do you propose to encode the "knowledge equity" in *.wp about banned books that is just "ripe for the encoding" at the various *.wp? 166 at en.wp for example. SashiRolls (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you use the term "knowledge equity" in this context. From the point of knowledge equity, information being "ripe for encoding" means that it's not valuable to add the knowledge because the information can already assessed easily. "Knowledge equity" is about giving that information which is not easily accessed by people space. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that as of this writing Slaughterhouse-Five is not listed on any of the various *.wp Wikidata should include. Le Quart Livre & Les Fleurs du Mal are only listed on fr.wp, etc., etc. There have been a lot more than 166 banned books in the course of history, as I'm sure you know. Banned / Prohibited books are also just one part of this proposal. There is at least one "instance of a banned compound" mentioned in the examples... SashiRolls (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a tradeoff between quantity and quality. Requiring this syntax helps with the quality as the statements that we do have about bannings will include what did the banning.

"instance of a banned compound" seems like a statement that's unclear. Are certain people banned from entering it? Is the existance of it banned (and thus it should be demolished)? When we require the origin of the ban to be stated it's easy to access that information.

Batch imports from Wikipedia have the additional problem that they are essentially unsourced for many contexts which makes it less desireable to optimize our syntax to make that easy. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I thank you for expressing your opinion, Christian. Perhaps others will agree with you, but I do not. Yesterday, you overruled the consensus of two people who worked on the entity Ulysses without any discussion ( § ). In trying to understand why, I imagined that you might be thinking that whether a work is banned or not is an accidental rather than an essential characteristic.

Research shows that this does not seem to be how Wikidata works. Take for example the banned book Slaughterhouse-Five (Q265954). Not only are there lists of awards received on the entry page, but there are also lists of awards it was nominated for (note the passive voice of both P166 & P1411). These are accidental or a posteriori type statements, not essential or a priori type statements.

I will ask you again: how would you encode bannings in the same way consensus has chosen to encode awards that books have won or been nominated for? Or if you don't want to answer that question... why do you think there should be two different encoding methods for awards and for bannings? What is gained by being inconsistent?

Another (minor) conceptual limitation with "prohibits" (incidentally) is that it is a present tense. A text that has been abrogated -- such as the text banning six of the elements of Les Fleurs du Mal -- no longer "prohibits" anything. This problem does not exist with the past participle "banned", since it is abstracted out of time... (is/was) banned. Perhaps you are beginning to see why I believe the passive voice is superior to the active voice (it focuses on the effects on the entity rather than on an external agent).

I think most people would (perhaps naively?) agree it would be absurd to change P166 "awards received" to gave award and P1411 "nominated for" to nominates for. I would ask those reading this discussion if they think this is an oversimplification, or if is is an accurate analogy to the position Christian is taking. SashiRolls (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of votes after transferring

   Under discussion

Description	(qualifier) see single transferable vote (Q115807)
Data type	Quantity
Allowed values	number (not necessary integer)
Example 1	John Brennan (Q98342830) → 641.92, 641.92, 646.76, 646.76, 650.76
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING

Motivation

Currently John Brennan (Q98342830) shows a constriant violation as the number of votes is not integer.GZWDer (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

My initial reaction is that this might be the wrong way around, and that if we want a separate property here, it would be the "Number of first preference votes" instead. Generally I think it would be good to avoid a scenario where a consumer of the data must know what type of election it was to know which property to use to get the 'final' number of votes a candidate received, and it would be best to keep votes received (P1111) for that, on the principle of least surprise (these are the totals that equate to the final rank order etc). In cases where there are vote transfers, then I do think it makes sense to also want to record the number of first preference votes, so I would support a new property for that. If we were to want to store every intermediate vote count then neither of these approaches really work very well, but I'm not sure if there's much demand for doing that. --Oravrattas (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)  Oppose the description doesn't make it clear what the property is about and how it differs from the existing property. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

negotiated by

   Under discussion

Description	Persons who negotiated this treaty, convention, or other international agreement
Represents	human (Q5)
Data type	Item
Template parameter	"negotiators" in en:template:infobox treaty
Domain	instances of treaty (Q131569) (and its subclasses)
Allowed values	instances of human (Q5)
Example 1	British-Brazilian Treaty of 1826 (Q98446911) → Robert Gordon (Q7344861), Antônio Luís Pereira da Cunha (Q16491930), José Egídio Álvares de Almeida (Q10309317)
Example 2	Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Q616109) → José Bernardo Couto (Q2917818), Luis Gonzaga Cuevas (Q16493976), Miguel de Atristain (no Wikidata item for him yet)
Example 3	Anglo-Irish Treaty (Q541191) → David Lloyd George (Q134982), F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead (Q333683), Austen Chamberlain (Q188999), Winston Churchill (Q8016), Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, 1st Baronet (Q7528241), Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart (Q334177), Hamar Greenwood, 1st Viscount Greenwood (Q5644085), Arthur Griffith (Q342765), Michael Collins (Q173196), Robert Barton (Q964439), Eamonn Duggan (Q333270), George Gavan Duffy (Q1507405) (this list isn't from an infobox, it is from the table in en:Anglo-Irish_Treaty#Negotiators)
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)

Motivation

For a treaty, there is generally one or more individuals who lead the negotiations on behalf of each country which is a party to them. There isn't any Wikidata property right now to express that. (Note the "negotiators" parameter in the en:template:infobox treaty is allowed to take either a person or a country; I think it is cleaner if a property doesn't do double duty like that; and a country can only negotiate a treaty through a person acting as negotiator.) SJK (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment Treaty of London (Q2014021) uses Somerset House Conference (Q67774598). The later can have participant (P710) statements (e.g. at Q46362#P710). If no separate item is made, significant person (P3342) could be used, but a dedicated property might work better. --- Jura 07:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: Not all international treaties are negotiated at formal conferences. Some are, some are not. I think the problem with "significant person" is that a person could be significant to a treaty without being a negotiator of it. For example, Pedro I of Brazil (Q939) is undeniably a significant person to British-Brazilian Treaty of 1826 (Q98446911), and yet he didn't negotiate it directly. Now, maybe that could be expressed with some kind of "role"="negotiator" qualifier. But here's my other point – separate properties are easier for users (especially beginners). Trying to express everything by using a smaller set of more generic properties, lots of qualifiers, etc – it appeals to some people experienced with Wikidata, but actually makes Wikidata harder for new users. SJK (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment/ Weak oppose It sort-of overlaps with represented by (P1875) maybe? Apart from what it's called, represented by (P1875) quite naturally wants to be linked to both the negotiation as well as the party they are representing. With "negotiator" or "negotiated by", there'll be a lot of confusion: should the part/signatory be the main statement, and the negotiator as a qualifier? Should it be the other way around? The result will be half of items will have both, the other half will have negotiators and their clients without any link. (Although the existence of represents (P1268) means this is a risk even now)

I don't see why it should be specific to people. It's quite common for, say, the Office of the Foreign Secretary to have this mandate. The case where it's a specific person is probably less frequent. And while high-profile cases such as Brexit are personalised in such a way, it'll be hard to find individual names being named even for something like the Kyoto Treaty. Not only do these events usually involve larger delegations, as long as it's not a principal (head of state/minister), it's actively discouraged to highlight individuals, because they'd be stealing their boss' spotlight.

Thinking one step ahead: does it make senses for this to be separate from the extremely similar situation in civil law? When Apple sends some law(yer/firm) to negotiate a merger, those relationships seem more or less identical to the political case. It's so close, in fact, that it isn't unheard of for major law firms to do this kind of work in both spheres. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

OFAC sanction ID

   On hold

Description	Number of an entry in OFAC sanction list
Data type	External identifier
Domain	people, organization, vehicle
Allowed values	\d+
Example 1	Bi Sidi Souleymane (Q98192346) → 81878193
Example 2	Slobodan Milošević (Q47139) → 689
Example 3	Tang Ping-keung (Q48914413) → 82538263
External links	Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd].
Number of IDs in source	~10000
Expected completeness	uncertain
Formatter URL	https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=$1

Motivation

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support. I guess it is OK. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose incomplete GZWDer : subject item field empty, Items Qs for domain field, the "allowed values" field is imprecise, "source" field empty, OFAC=Office Fédéral de l'Aviation Civil? or Observatoire des Forêts d'Afrique Centrale?, acquisition of identifiers in what way?, etc. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You can see w:Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, although the OFAC list is broader than this.--GZWDer (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The ID seems changed, so I will put it on hold for now.--GZWDer (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

financials URL

   Under discussion

Description	URL of official website or pages about an organization's financials; e.g. investor website for a public corporation, section with annual reports of the organization
Data type	URL
Domain	organizations
Allowed values	URL
Example 1	Action Against Hunger (Q343624) → https://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/nous-decouvrir/transparence-financiere/
Example 2	Xerox (Q152433) → https://www.news.xerox.com/investors
Example 3	Wikimedia Foundation (Q180) → https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
Example 4	ADAC (Q289953) → https://www.adac.de/der-adac/ueber-uns-se/finanzen/
Example 5	Tesco (Q487494) → https://www.tescoplc.com/investors/
Example 6	Air France-KLM (Q407237) → https://www.airfranceklm.com/fr/finance
Example 7	Michelin (Q151107) → https://www.michelin.com/finance/
Example 8	Alphabet Inc. (Q20800404) → https://abc.xyz/investor/
Example 9	IBM (Q37156) → https://www.ibm.com/investor
Example 10	Cargill (Q1036056) → https://www.cargill.com/about/financial
Planned use	add to some
See also	official website (P856): URL of the official homepage of an item (current or former) [if the homepage changes, add an additional statement with preferred rank. Do not remove the former URL] total assets (P2403), total revenue (P2139), donations (P8093), etc. privacy policy URL (P7101), terms of service URL (P7014), charter URL (P6378), online catalog (P8768)

Motivation

Sometimes easily found, sometimes not. Interesting for this aspect of organizations, as object of study or other (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 08:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Franzsimon Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 User:zuphilip MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Kristbaum Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler Notified participants of WikiProject Companies please help complete the proposal/add samples. --- Jura 08:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment Are there many cases where the financials/investor page is not clearly linked from the official website? I'm not convinced there's value in having this additional link. - PKM (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Try sample 2. Or WMF/WMDE --- Jura 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Franzsimon Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 User:zuphilip MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Kristbaum Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler Notified participants of WikiProject Companies

•  Comment shall we go ahead with this? --- Jura 13:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose Seems to be very US-centric. I don't think companies outside or America are required to publish such a page. Could you tell us more about the legal context? Johanricher (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Johanricher: WMDE isn't really US nor a company. --- Jura 13:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't seem to find the relevant page for WMDE. Johanricher (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Johanricher: Which would explain why the property is useful, isn't it? --- Jura 13:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Not if the page is irrelevant, i.e. not comparable to the other examples you gave, which are all from the US. I would be ready to change my mind if you could provide homogeneous examples from a diverse range of country and which directly match your description of the proposed property ("organization's financials, eg. investor website for public corporations"). Johanricher (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Johanricher: I think it matches the description "organization financials". I can add more samples (e.g.) if that helps. --- Jura 14:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • For now, and as far I can understand with the elements you put forward, it's still a US-centric property proposal with an unclear factual or legal definition. I think properties should thrive to apply to any jurisdiction, or be very clear when they're country-specific. Johanricher (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Johanricher: I don't quite get what makes you think it's US-centric (except that I started out with US companies as samples). Can you explain? It's clear that the property is not needed for countries where everything is published through centralized databases only nor for countries where no financials are published by organizations, but that doesn't explain why everybody else who does that is considered "US". --- Jura 15:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • My intention was first to get a clear definition as to what "financials" exactly entailed. I suppose that if companies publish such documents on their website, it must mean that they're obligated by law to do so. So, those "financials" you describe must translate very differently depending on the countries and jurisdictions of such companies. Probably just by looking at distinction of civil law and common law countries, there might not be comparable elements or even anything that could be called "financials". Consequently, if the property only applies to some juridisctions, it must be established and clarified in the property description. Otherwise, Wikidata contributors will use it with a wide range of heterogeneous results, which will be pretty much useless. IMHO. Such a vague property wouldn't bring anything of value that the generic official website (P856) doesn't already gives.
    • Hm, somehow I doubt that view is shared by finance people. I don't get the link with US and whatever distinction you make in finance. Is this supported by some reference or just a personal view? It's clear that the actual depth of the available information varies depending on what organizations have to or want to publish. This is obviously true for most if not all external links. --- Jura 17:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Different countries have different accounting and financial practices. Some will look at the "EBITDA" while it won't apply to other countries where there will be another concept called "excédent brut d'exploitation". Both exists in Wikidata, for good reasons, because they're plainly different. And experts would not consider them at the same when compared. "Financials" is just to vague a term, I think. Instead of an external link (which breaks often, which is an additonnal issue), I think it's better to use factual properties such as total revenue (P2139) as you mentioned, with the URL as a reference of that statement. Johanricher (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • The question is if one company has several definitions of "financials" depending on standards of different countries. This could make it difficulte to add values, but, similar to privacy policy URL (P7101), terms of service URL (P7014), charter URL (P6378), generally there is just one.
      I think some user started to propose properties for various numbers, but I think they never started to add data nor actually got to EBITDA, so that doesn't seem to be a working alternative even for users who propose such properties (Maybe it does for you?). Anyways, the suggestion still requires to find the URL in the first place and it doesn't really change the other problem you mention (URLs change).
      That they do is a known problem, but this isn't really specific to this property, but shared with thousands of others we include. We have ways to handle that, so there is no need to worry about it.
      I suppose in the meantime, you discarded the idea that the property would be US specific. --- Jura 17:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • No, my point still stands, I just added to it. I still think "financials" is too vague a term to apply to all countries and use cases at once, among other problems. But we're just going in circle with this argument now. If others find this proposed property useful then my opposition is irrelevant. Johanricher (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, if you don't care to explain why it would be US centric, we can just move on. --- Jura 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Neutral I don't really see a necessity to create a property for this. IR areas are usually prominently linked from the companies' homepage. official website (P856) is therefore sufficient in my opinion. But then I don't see any harm in a new property either. --MB-one (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @MB-one: As mentioned above try sample 2. Or WMF/WMDE to find links about their financials. --- Jura 13:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think there is an open question of how the situation is outside of the US. Answering that question can be helpful for not creating a solution that works for one country but not for others (it's preferable not to have to patch meaning later). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Tesco is British and hard to find if you start out from what's in Wikidata. WMDE mentioned earlier is in Germany. --- Jura 14:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: I redid the samples: there is now a better mix of different types of organizations (public companies, private companies, non profits) from various countries other than that one (France, Germany, United Kingdom). Do you think we need more to illustrate it? --- Jura 07:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Neutral Per MB-one. All listed companies have IR area on website, but these are mostly very easy to find and mostly linked straight from frontpage. official website (P856) is sufficient in my opinion.--Jklamo (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Germartin1 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Can be expressed as prop "URL" with qualifier "of" financial statement (Q192907). --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Vladimir Alexiev: this is true for any property with that datatype, but in which cases would you create a separate property (or use URL (P2699))? Besides, it seems the subject of P2699 would have to be a resource, not an organization, see the property sample Art & Architecture Thesaurus LOD Dataset (Q23017666). --- Jura 09:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: I would NOT create anymore specific URL properties.

Thanks for digging out that example, it shows clearly how to use "URL" and "of".

Why do you think the subject of "URL" cannot be an organization? Any item can have any number of URLs on a variety of topics --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I see. Well, we have had a few properties since then. For more or less frequent or important aspects (obviously, the later is a matter of POV). I just noticed that you proposed "URL" (Archive/48#P2699) where it does seem to have been for datasets. BTW, the sample is the one you gave in the proposal. --- Jura 10:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

erected by

   Under discussion

Description	person who erected the organization or the structure
Data type	Item
Domain	human (Q5)
Example 1	Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Guwahati (Q1364571) → John Paul II (Q989)
Example 2	Roman Catholic Diocese of Barisal (Q21906977) → Francis (Q450675)
Example 3	Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit (Q1364441) → Leo XII (Q43727)
Example 4	Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte (Q867825) → Paul VI (Q16975)
Planned use	Add it to dioceses of the Catholic Church.

Motivation

Good day, I discussed this off-wiki in different chatrooms with other contributors, and it was suggested to create a new property since none of the existing properties are really accurate for this (the closest we got are 'founded by' and 'creator'). This proposed property is to indicate which person erected an organization or structure. More specifically, it will be used to indicate which pope erected a diocese. Many Wikipedias have categories for this such as Q9133243 for example. Beside using it to indicate which pope erected a diocese, I also plan to use this property to indicate which bishop erected a parish. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support Don't seem to have other properties that could replace this. --Fralambert (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not familiar with the church usage here, but "erected" seems an odd choice of verb - usually in English at least it refers to construction of some civil engineering structure - a building, bridge, dam, etc. We do have the property main building contractor (P193), but I could still see a lot of confusion with this label. Can you explain why approved by (P790) doesn't cover what you need here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why it's an "odd choice of verb" with "erected", when the related noun is "canonical erection". Amqui (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Never heard that expression before. Do you have a link? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose I doubt that John Paul II (Q989) did meaningful work in erecting Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Guwahati (Q1364571). He likely commissioned it or funded it's erection but he didn't erect it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

branch or affiliate

   Under discussion

Data type	Item
Domain	politician (Q82955)
Allowed values	political party (Q7278) which have statement part of (P361)
Example 1	Mary Abrams (Q100319948) → Democratic Party (Q29552) (Democratic Party of Connecticut (Q5255712)
Example 2	Joseph Bishop-Henchman (Q100327516) → Libertarian Party (Q558334) (Libertarian Party of the District of Columbia (Q17002282))
Example 3	Ralph Nader (Q193156) → Green Party of the United States (Q849158) (Connecticut Green Party (Q5161540)
See also	parent club (P831), affiliation (P1416), parent organization (P749), member of (P463), subsidiary (P355)

Motivation

This is mostly intended as a qualifier property for member of political party (P102). It has never been clear to me whether a politician should be considered a member of their state affiliate or the national party. This property would provide a solution to both. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 Comment I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. There's the party a voter is registered with and for which you would be allowed to vote in primaries, which in the US would generally be determined by the state since states handle voter registration. But you can also be a member of the organization itself (paying dues, etc., which most voters do not), and in the case of New York that I'm familiar with, that local party organization is actually at the town (or maybe county) level, not the state. But dues-paying membership should probably be handled with member of (P463). ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: This is intended for the party a [person] is registered with and for which [they] would be allowed to vote in primaries [or caucus with], which in the US would generally be determined by the state [they live in]. You are right that member of (P463) would be appropriate for dues-paying organisations including local affiliates, but I am not really after that info. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

number of blood donors

   Under discussion

Description	number of people that have donated blood for an organization at a particular time
Data type	Quantity
Domain	Instance of/subclass of aid agency (Q336473) or non-governmental organization (Q79913) or nonprofit organization (Q163740)
Allowed values	positive natural number
Example 1	Italian Red Cross (Q913903) → 6,318[1]
Example 2	Swiss Red Cross (Q456988) → 208,044[2]
Example 3	German Red Cross (Q694104) → 1,700,000[3]
Source	https://data.ifrc.org/fdrs/societies
Planned use	I'd like to use this property to indicate the number of people donating blood at least once during humanitarian activities of an aid organization. Is important specify the year within which the declaration is valid with a qualifier point in time (P585).
See also	number of volunteers (P6125)

Motivation

At the moment i could add for a person the role of blood donor, but for an organization the number cannot be added; i'm proposing this property because i would like to add the number of blood donors of the national Red Cross and Red Crescent society (Q1968122) avaiable on Federation-wide Databank and Reporting System (FDRS). LiaFla (talk) 11:40, 17 Nov 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• The example that list the numbers without any regard for the time frame for which the statement is true seem questionable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• sorry, i didn't add, but for each data about the number of donors, the period within which the declaration is valid should be specified with a qualifier point in time (P585) (about Italian Red Cross example, is important add 'point in time' to specify '2018' as valid data). Are you agree? LiaFla 11:21 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, specifying that we want to store yearly data is important. It makes it clear how the property is intended to be used. Yearly data is likely fine while daily data would be too much statements. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • thank you, i just added it in "planned use". LiaFla 19:07 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Airon90 ValterVB Alexmar983 Epìdosis Pietro Jura Beta16 Yiyi Sannita Camelia Massimo Sentruper Pierpao Marcok CristianNX Daniele Pugliesi (WMIT) AttoRenato Parma1983 Aborruso Sabas88 Lalupa DnaX Fausta Samaritani Patafisik Malore Jtorquy Nicholas Gemini Civvì Devbug Afnecors Susanna Giaccai FabC FeltriaUrbsPicta Horcrux Uomovariabile Luckyz Francians Carlobia Ferdi2005 Luca.favorido Lemure Saltante Notified participants of WikiProject Italy Manoillon Pasleim Alexmar983 Masegand Hadi Lantus Nattes à chat 1-Byte Eihel Notified participants of WikiProject Switzerland --LiaFla(talk) 19:16, 24 Nov 2020 (UTC) (I removed the character before the ping project template as they make the template render wrongly) ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• @ChristianKl: tnks for your edit about the template --LiaFla (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Jura1: This property would be usefull to add some data about the WikiProject IFRC as the new property number of aid beneficiaries (P9077)...what do you think about it? --LiaFla (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support, an important property for charity.--Arbnos (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

type of health or social institution in France

   Under discussion

Represents	no label (Q104889392)
Data type	Item
Domain	établissements sanitaires et sociaux en France
Allowed values	catégories décrites dans la nomenclature
Example 1	Centre hospitalier universitaire d’Amiens (Q30279619) → regional hospital center (Q2945729)
Example 2	Centre Hospitalier de Beauvais (Q50036396) → centre hospitalier (France) (Q2945655)
Example 3	Q92062511 → Q3145344
Source	http://finess.sante.gouv.fr/fininter/jsp/index.jsp
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)

Motivation

Mettre de l'ordre dans les types d'établissements en commençant par les hôpitaux. Arpyia (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment @Arpyia: Why not use instance of (P31) for this? That is generally how we designate types of entities in Wikidata.. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  D'abord parce que ce serait un parti pris extrême de considérer que la catégorisation du ministère est la représentation absolue de la réalité : c'est une classification très utile mais tout de même pas la seule vérité possible, surtout quand elle s'applique à des entités privées. Mais aussi, parce que le répertoire Finess range dans les mêmes catégories des objets de nature très différente, notamment des structures juridiques et des sites d'implantation, qui n'appellent pas du tout le même traitement sur Wikidata. Arpyia (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment if this is meant for some specific classification, please include its name in the label (English and French) --- Jura 17:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

APE code

   Under discussion

Description	standard French code for industry classification
Represents	activité principale exercée (Q2823750)
Data type	Item
Domain	entreprises et établissements en France
Allowed values	codes APE (éléments à créer pour chaque code de la nomenclature)
Example 1	La Fonte Ardennaise (Q3209111) 24.51Z - Fonderie de fonte
Example 2	Q3221668 46.17A - Centrales d'achat alimentaires
Example 3	Q2882167 32.50A - Fabrication de matériel médico-chirurgical et dentaire
Source	https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000017765090/2021-01-18/

Motivation

Une meilleure classification des entreprises et de leurs établissements par activité. Arpyia (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

INSEE business category

   Under discussion

Description	category for a business enterprise assigned by the French statistical agency INSEE
Represents	no label (Q104889612)
Data type	Item
Domain	entreprises et établissements en France
Allowed values	4 catégories actuellement
Example 1	La Fonte Ardennaise (Q3209111) ETI - Entreprise de Taille Intermédiaire
Example 2	Q3221668 PME - Petite ou Moyenne Entreprise
Example 3	Q2882167 PME - Petite ou Moyenne Entreprise
Source	https://www.insee.fr/fr/metadonnees/definition/c1057

Motivation

Pour renseigner des informations plus précises sur les entreprises. Arpyia (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment if this is meant for some specific classification, please include its name in the label (English and French). English seems currently fine. --- Jura 17:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

government debt-to-GDP ratio

   abandoned

Description	ratio used to measure the level of debt in relationship to a countrys GDP
Data type	Quantity
Domain	p31 country/state
Allowed values	0-infinity
Example 1	Sweden (Q34) → 35.1 + point in time 2020 https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-debt-to-gdp
Example 2	United States of America (Q30) → 109 + point in time 2020 https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
Example 3	Nigeria (Q1033) → 34.98 + point in time 2020 https://tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/government-debt-to-gdp10

Motivation

This is useful for ranking comparing the endebtedness of countries. It can also be measured for households but this property is for government debt to GDP ratio. It's usually stated in percent.--So9q (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment Is it more common for this ratio to be provided for a country or for the two components of this ratio to be provided? (Also these should be going on their respective "economy of" items.) Mahir256 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I had not thought about that, if we have the data then we can of course calculate it ourselves. I'll investigate if we have both debt and GDP for Sweden e.g. and test calculating with spaql.--So9q (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• We already have the GDP data for many items but none have both debt and GDP, see Query--So9q (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Resident Advisor club ID

   Under discussion

Description	identifier for venue at the Resident Advisor website
Represents	Resident Advisor (Q3427703)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	performing arts building (Q57660343)
Allowed values	[1-9]\d+
Example 1	Berghain (Q136975) → 5031
Example 2	Institut fuer Zukunft (Q105549379) → 94601
Example 3	Fabric (Q1390710) → 237
Number of IDs in source	≈ 180,000
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://ra.co/clubs/$1
See also	Resident Advisor artist ID (P6600), Resident Advisor label ID (P6601)
Applicable "stated in"-value	Resident Advisor (Q3427703)
Distinct values constraint	yes

Motivation

We already have the IDs for artists and labels. No reason not to include venues. Karl Oblique (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support --Lectrician1 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Moebeus (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

affiliated worker organisation

   Under discussion

Description	Organizations representing workers in a specific company (Q783794)
Represents	trade union (Q178790) or works council (Q671974)
Data type	Item
Template parameter	worker_representation in en:template:infobox company, (does not exist yet, see talk page)
Domain	Any instances of sub classes of organization (Q43229), e.g. an instance of company (Q783794), university (Q3918),non-governmental organization (Q79913) or any other employer like organization.
Example 1	United States Postal Service (Q668687) → National Association of Letter Carriers (Q6970695)
Example 2	Deutsche Telekom (Q9396) → Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft (Q547951)
Example 3	Vizag Steel (Q3633022) → Visakha Steel Workers Union (Q7935575)
Expected completeness	For works council (Q671974) in biggest companies, near 100% completion, for unions, will be very incomplete.
Wikidata project	WikiProject Companies

Motivation

Organizations that represent workers for example trade unions, affinity groups etc.., should be a property of companies (Q783794) Shushugah (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support I was in touch and advised the proposer during an editathon. Seems like a useful property to me.--Pharos (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Support Is there maybe some better way to phrase this? affiliated labor organisation maybe? Company is also too narrow. Many non-company organizations have employees which are represented, including trade unions themselves. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think multiple aliases will be needed but I like your recommendation and will modify proposal to party include that name (avoiding labor/labour in favor of worker for simplicity). No matter what field name we come up with. I completely agree, that company is too narrow, when we really mean something like an employer, whether it's a company, an NGO, a university, or even a trade union, if we want to be meta. I looked at the property employer (P108) and there are several constraints we could use, in addition to the company, whether it is a cultural institution, organization, government institution, university etc.. I am curious/worried about how this definition would be applied in the different legal contexts across different countries, and also the situation where one company, has multiple affiliated labor organizations. Shushugah (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Support --Lectrician1 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Support Great idea, much needed Zarasophos (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)