Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

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

See alsoEdit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.
Do not use the Visual editor, because it will mess up the content of your request (the order of the template parameters will be shuffled and paragraphs are concatenated as one long string of text).

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See 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 2022/01.



   Under discussion
DescriptionBiological sex of an animal or person
Representssex (Q290)
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5) or animal (Q729)
Allowed valuesmale (Q6581097), female (Q6581072), intersex (Q1097630), male organism (Q44148), female organism (Q43445)
Example 1Kitty Anderson (Q59160028)intersex (Q1097630)
Example 2Dolly (Q171433)female organism (Q43445)
Example 3Alex (Q24628)male organism (Q44148)
Planned useThis property would be used for all individual animals with a known sex and for individual humans when their sex is notable (see Motivation below). Note that the existing sex or gender (P21) is being changed to just "gender" per consensus.
Robot and gadget jobsa bot will be written to migrate male organism (Q44148) and female organism (Q43445) claims from sex or gender (P21).
See alsosex or gender (P21) (which is being changed to just "gender"), property that may violate privacy (Q44601380)


After many years of debate and discussion, consensus was reached to split sex or gender (P21) into two separate properties. sex or gender (P21) will be renamed "gender" and a new "sex" property will be created to handle animal sex and the rare cases where a human's sex is notable separately from their gender. For example, Kitty Anderson (Q59160028) is a notable intersex (Q1097630) activist, but her gender is female (Q6581072). Previously, sex or gender (P21) had to be overloaded for both uses. In some previous discussions, concerns were raised about whether or not certain languages (especially Japanese and Chinese) had separate words for "sex" and "gender". It has been confirmed that both of those languages have separate words for the two concepts, and even if a language doesn't have separate words, they can still be disambiguated by the description. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


  • A discussion from 2013 closed in 2019? I wonder if any of the participant are still active in Wikidata .. --- Jura 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose use sex or gender (P21) with qualifiers. --- Jura 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are some benefits to split this unrelated to the explanation given above. --- Jura 01:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. On one hand it always made intuitive sense to me to split it for the sake of modularity and precision. On the other hand, it may become a "fun" battleground for people who will insist on setting the sex value of transgender people to what they were assigned at birth, and I'm not quite sure it's totally good. It may work well if a very clear and strongly enforced policy is defined for dealing with such cases in a way that presents precise information and is respectful to the subjects of the items. I'm not sure what this policy should actually be, though. I haven't seen a description of such a policy in the current proposals and discussions, but maybe I haven't searched well. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think there should be a policy, that it should only be added to a person if and only if they have stated it themself publicly and unambiguously, otherwise we should only indicate gender. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, that could be a possibility. As I said, the distinction generally makes sense, and I'll be happy to support it if there's a policy that will prevent the misuse of this property in unhelpful and transphobic ways. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion we may keep current P21 for "(biological) sex" and create a new property "gender identity".--GZWDer (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it makes more sense to do it the other way around, as the currently existing property is mostly used for persons to indicate their gender. Very few uses are for non-human animals in comparison to humans. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Agree with Robin, the current uses of P21 are mostly to indicate people's gender, so it would make the most sense to leave that one as the gender property. Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
        Fully agree, P21 must be gender and not sex. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I think it makes sense to seperate gender from sex, but there should be a proper policy to avoid harassment of trans people. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This distinction is needed. Amir (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support subject to the policy statements related on privacy of individuals stated in Wikidata:Living people. John Samuel (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. I oppose if the proposal means that a human's sex will be classified as "gender." "Sex" and "gender" are sometimes distinguished for valid reasons, and I don't think distinguishing them should only apply to "to handl[ing] animal sex and the rare cases where a human's sex is notable separately from their gender." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    A human's gender will be classified as "gender". A human's sex will be classified as "sex", but if and only if it's publicly known and relevant, and in compliance with Wikidata:Living people. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Kind of, but what concerns me is how do you define "relevant" in a way that won't be abused. The current situation at Sam Bettens (Q274154), for example, doesn't look optimal. It currently says:
    sex or gender:
    1. female / end time: 18 May 2019
    2. transgender male / start time: 18 May 2019; nature of statement: coming out
    I'm not transgender, so please do tell me if I'm saying something wrong and dumb, but from what I heard, transgender people usually feel that they've always been their gender, so saying that Sam Bettens was female until 18 May 2019 is probably not entirely correct.
    Should this be changed? Probably. Saying that he is male is probably correct, and saying that he's transgender is probably correct and relevant, too. Mentioning the coming out date is probably relevant, too.
    But here's the most important part for this discussion: Is it correct and relevant that his sex is female? I honestly don't know, but I suspect that it may not be. I'd love to have something better, but I'm afraid that without very, very clear policy this can be misused.
    Maybe for humans we can have a policy that only allows specifying gender and an indication of being transgender, we use "sex" only for non-humans, and statements that don't conform to this are speedily deleted. But there may be problems with this approach, too. Again, I just don't quite know. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think some of this is overthinking the issue. The most important point is that sex is rarely a relevant attribute for a human, whereas gender is. That is true of transgender people as well. And, rather than attempting to generalize at all about how transgender people work, we should instead rely on the subject's own self-identification, or reputable sources. But the current usage of P21 has been to signify the subject's gender, not sex, and there is no suggestion that once this property is implemented we would need to go in and determine everyone's sex as well. Just because most humans have a sex does not mean Wikidata needs to concern itself with describing that for every subject—just like we do not describe all of their street addresses even though there is such a property. The only relevant property for almost all humans should be gender. Sex should only be appropriate in exceedingly rare cases, and that can be explained in the property's usage guidelines, or even enforced with a constraint. Dominic (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    The most important point is that sex is rarely a relevant attribute for a human - this.
    there is no suggestion that once this property is implemented we would need to go in and determine everyone's sex as well - this, too. However, I suspect that some people will start saying that we do need to determine everyone's sex. They will be wrong, and this should be prevented as early as possible by policies.
    Sex should only be appropriate in exceedingly rare cases - yes, and maybe even never. This should be defined. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Does this answer your question Amir? Amir (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    User:Ladsgroup - Yeah, mostly, thanks. It's not totally explicit there, but as far as I can see, it suggests using "sex" for non-humans and for intersex people. This makes sense, although maybe it should be more explicit.
    Can anyone think of reasons to use "sex" for non-intersex humans? Whatever the answer is, it should probably be explicit. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    "The most important point is that sex is rarely a relevant attribute for a human." Not true, as is clear by health aspects such as sex differences in medicine. Regardless of how one identifies, sex (rather than gender) differences matter when it comes to medicine. As for "most humans have a sex", what humans do not have a sex? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    This is relevant for a private conversation with a person's own doctor and family, and not so much on this public website.
    If a person's being transgender is verifiable and relevant as public information, it can be stated in another appropriate property, as proposed in Wikidata:WikiProject_LGBT/gender. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support At Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT there is a directory of discussions at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender which demonstrate the ongoing difficulty of having a property for sex or gender. I support the split and also I support this proposed method for the split. I sympathize with the oppose votes who wish to avoid having sex and gender being repeated fields for biographies. Over years of discussion this has been a sticking point, and what is new right now is that our community has matured to the point of having enough people be able to have conversations about property proposals on Wikidata. I think now is the right time to make the switch, and even a few months ago would have been premature. The most challenging part of this change is not a Wikidata property proposal, but coming to understand that by doing this we are changing our language such that the terms "sex" and "gender" are going to have specific meanings in the Wiki community drawing from LGBT+ discussions on the topic. I encourage anyone to have conversations anywhere, but if anyone sees a conversation, please consider listing it at that LGBT+ page with the others. Also edit the LGBT+ gender page to develop the guideline. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I am thinking more about how we are going to assign either sex or gender to people, and when this will be original research. We have consensus to do gender assignments as original research on almost every human. We will do this based on some evaluation, presumably including whether their name is gendered, and their physical appearance often based on one photo, and then in much rarer cases when there is additional context, like the sort of information which would go into a Wikipedia article.
I am sure that I support a split of sex and gender. Sex seems natural to have; this is the property for marking what external sex organ a person has. We usually will not have that information, and instead probably will label most biographies by gender presentation which we determine by original research. Hmmm! Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Yep, you get it. As a non-binary trans person I've been dealing with these issues in daily life as well as online for years. It gives me a real headache but it is important to get it right. Funcrunch (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support from a purely semantic position, these are two different concepts, which require two different properties to meaningfully describe them. This is fairly obvious with some simple thought experiments, such as "Are there any subjects where the values would not be the same?" or "Are there subjects where one property would be appropriate, but the other would not be?". As a general rule, we do not combine distinct attributes into a single property and then distinguish which one is meant with a qualifier. So, something must be done about it.

    I would also point out that the idea that sex and gender can be represented as a single property means Wikidata is itself using fairly loaded language on a huge number of items, including sensitive ones. We have a practice of referring to certain people as, for example "transgender female," but do not generally identify people as "cisgender male". A person's gender should be reflected in a property with a value consisting only of their gender—regardless of what that is—without reference to their genitalia or sex. The fact that we only take this approach of conflating distinct concepts with a single property for sex/gender is troubling. To me, this seems important not only out of respect for the subjects we describe, but also to be a welcoming editor community for all who would want to participate and could be rightfully put off by how we talk about gender currently. Dominic (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support per Dominic, though as a trans person I am concerned as others have mentioned that some editors will still unnecessarily add differing "sex" attributes to trans people, insisting that our birth-assigned sexes be listed even though our genders differ from these. ETA: Most trans people prefer to avoid the term "biological sex", which is often used to invalidate our genders. Though "assigned sex" might not be appropriate in the case of non-human animals, another term should be considered for the description of this property. Funcrunch (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too late. sex or gender (P21) is already used in hundreds of templates in 100+ languages, changing anything now is just a very bad idea.--Jklamo (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    That's not a valid reason, We deprecated a property that was used in millions of places (P106 IIRC). This is definitely smaller change than that one. Amir (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Jklamo: Only about 10,000 existing uses of sex or gender (P21) would need to be migrated. Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    It is. Are going to go through all templates using sex or gender (P21) (in 100+ languages) and distinguish if it is appropriate to use "genderfied" sex or gender (P21) on new property (even for languages, that do not differentiate gender and sex at all)? Widely used properties need to be as stable as possible.--Jklamo (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Dominic; this would correct a very visible departure from the general "items and properties should not conflate distinct entities" ethos. Also, this would make it easier for tools to accidentally do the right thing with regards to gender, handling transgender females as females and transgender males as males unless there was some need to specifically query sex. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sex and gender are different concepts, so we should have properties for both. MBH (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So is the purpose of this to give harassers an avenue to call trans women "male organisms", or is that just an acceptable side effect? There is no reason to distinguish "biological sex" and "gender" for people unless you think documenting people's genitalia or chromosomes is relevant and not an extreme invasion of privacy. Please don't respond to this if it's just to tell me "but you are a male organism".--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    User:Alexandra IDV, this is my concern as well, but see User:Ladsgroup's response above. It mostly addresses this problem, although I think it should be more explicit. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "consensus was reached" That's not how consensus works. I'm surprised to see such an attempt. Hence oppose, at least until there is a meaningful discussion on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support But biological gender need to be at birth, and gender must be current. 17:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    What is “biological gender” supposed to be? Can you clarify what you mean? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support They are different concepts. As someone said above, following the recommendations laid here Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender would be important. Scann (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This concept is to complex to be described with such tools as our properties. To describe all the shades and tints of this, you have to use text. So no, out of scope! 62 etc (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Certainly it’s complex, but we can try to do the best we can with the tools we have. Do you think a split into separate “gender” and “sex” properties would be worse than the current situation where they’re conflated in a single “sex or gender” property? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    "the best we can" will not even be close to good, as soon as we go outside the non-binary. Not even the biological thing is easy to describe here as soon as we reach outside of the binary. But in those cases we can at least describe them in terms of medical conditions. 62 etc (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support for split. sex or gender (P21) should stay for distingusih, if object is male or female sex (Q290) (at birth) - majority of uses. The new property should be for storing information, that someone feels as female, but according chromosomes is male, somebody is transsexual and other weird uses (gender (Q48277) (minority of uses). JAn Dudík (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    What do you mean by “majority of uses”? All of the wiki projects I’m aware of primarily refer to trans and nonbinary people by their gender, not their sex. (Also, in the spirit of assuming good faith, I should let you know that your comment reads as very transphobic to me, whether intentional or not, and if that was not the intention I suggest you clarify it and avoid phrases like weird uses.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - while we need to acknowledge "those" types of people, at this point I feel as if they are still debating amongst themselves with what the proper terminology should be. Therefore it would be premature for institutions to make changes. Quakewoody (talk)
After reading continual comments from others, I can't help but want to repeat myself - at this point I feel as if they are still debating amongst themselves with what the proper terminology should be. Therefore it would be premature for institutions to make changes. And I can't help but point out 2 things.
  1. A major US city decided on 31 pronouns which angered the activists who wanted at least 101.
  2. The entire point of being "fluid" instead of being binary is not just to prevent falling into a "category" (which exactly what we are trying to do here, forcing them to be a label), but it is also changeable at a moment's notice - like a river, the river itself will always be there but it will never be the same water because it is constantly changing, aka fluid
So, for us, what exactly are we trying to do? Label something that doesn't want to be labeled. Name something that can be renamed before we even finish naming it. Quakewoody (talk)
@Quakewoody: regarding that first point… would you mind clarifying how it’s at all relevant to this proposal? And which city is this supposed to have been – do you have a source for this story? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I’m confused by the Motivation section of this proposal. It correctly notes that there have been many years and debate and discussion, which I’ve sadly not been very active in (though I believe it picked up around Wikimania this year?) – but then why does it only link to a discussion that had no new comments since 2013? Other people here have already linked to Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender – is there a reason why this was not mentioned in the proposal from the beginning? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Mainly just because that page wasn't as fleshed out at the time. Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question How would trans people be modeled once this property exists and Property:P21 has been adjusted accordingly? Would a trans woman have gender female (Q6581072) and sex male (Q6581097)? Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender assumes the existence of a “transgender status” property, but I haven’t seen a property proposal for that yet.
More specifically, I’m not convinced that using “sex” in that way would be correct. I believe some people argue that “biological sex”, as a collection of multiple features (not limited to chromosomes), also changes over the course of transition: hormone replacement therapy may change a person’s hormonal balance and, over time, their secondary sex characteristics (e. g. trans women growing breasts and trans men’s voice dropping), and gender confirmation surgery may alter their primary or secondary sex organs as well. The current form of this proposal doesn’t make it clear to me how (or whether at all) this would be represented. (Changing the property to “birth sex” would resolve that question, but would fail to account for intersex people who only discover their condition later in life, I think.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC) (Same disclaimer as Amir E. Aharoni above – please let me know if I’ve written something stupid or insensitive, that was not my intention.)
@Lucas Werkmeister: Those are great questions. The currently proposed data model at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender (which this proposal is related to), suggests that a trans woman would have gender female (Q6581072), but no "sex" property set unless for some reason it was notable and verifiable. I admit that there is some uncertainty about how that would actually play out, and we will need to create some guidelines around it to make sure that it isn't used in ways that are disrespectful to trans folks. Also, you are correct that there is not yet a proposal for a "transgender status" property, mainly just because it's easier to manage one proposal at a time, but anyone is welcome to make such a proposal at any time. My hope is that if we can introduce a "transgender status" property, people will use that rather than trying to use the "sex" property to indicate that someone is transgender. Hope that answers some of your questions, and feel free to propose improvements to the data model. Any constructive input is welcome. Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support since this is a generally sensible proposal, but I’d like to upgrade it to {{Support}} or {{Strong support}} once my questions above have been answered. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support new property “sex”, but   Oppose renaming of sex or gender (P21).   Comment A separate, new property “gender” should be created, with suggested uses in something like the following fashion:
    sex or gender (P21) to be kept or used for statements stemming from cultural contexts where there is or was no clear distinction between sex and gender in the modern-day anglophone Western sense (if there are, or should arise, other sex-and-gender-related properties that are more culturally relevant on a case-by-case basis, these could of course be used as well); as well as in the case of unreferenced statements that make it impossible to discern whether sex or gender was intended, or where references exist but have not (yet) been followed up to confirm.
    The new “gender” property to be used in contexts and with intents that clearly distinguish between sex and gender in the senses implied here.
    BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose My language (swedish) does not have separate words for "sex" and "gender", both are "kön" (unless "sex" is a verb, then it is "sex" in swedish too). We get along just fine without any distinction between the two. /ℇsquilo 12:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    In Russian it's unclear too. "Пол" (sex) and "гендер" (gender) are believed to be synonymic. As the term of "гендер" is actively pushing by feminist activists as the replacement for "пол", "гендер" is sometimes perceived with some irony (I'm not sharing this). The language problem is important. Not all not non-English-speaking users are using Wikidata with their local languages, but some people do, and may have a confusion. --Wolverène (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Sex and gender are synonymic in every language, because for the many people, gender is how you represent your sex. The term ‘гендер’ is perfectly valid term in Russian social science to describe everything that ‘пол’ can’t. Transphobia associated with it in colloquial usage is nothing to be concerned about in Wikidata or any other encyclopaedic project. I agree that adding ‘пол’ (sex) property might be really bad if it is allowed for usage for most humans, however. stjn[ru] 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Esquilo: I think we in Swedish have "kön" and "könsidentitet". But I doubt there is a 1:1-fit to the English words sex and gender here. 62 etc (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    Judging by the description of "sex" and "gender" in English, the distinction is totally different. If we introduce this property as it is described, it will have to replace sex or gender (P21) in 99,99% of all objects where it is used. /ℇsquilo 07:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    There is a Russian word that is forgotten in this discussion, and it is relevant for other languages, too. In English, "gender" has been used for a long time mostly for grammatical gender—a linguistic property that is sometimes, but not always, related to biological sex. The Russian language has a separate word for it: род.
    In recent decades, "gender" in English began to be used for the social and psychological concept of gender, which may be different from what a person is assigned at birth according to how their body looks like. This word is also used as a loanword neologism in some languages, including Russian, and then it may be associated with a certain narrative that not everyone understands, and with which not everyone agrees.
    In practice, I could find two actual uses for the sex/gender property, at least as far as it concerns humans:
    1. Using the correct word according to the gender, if the language requires is. This may apply to English, too, for example actor/actress, and in many other languages it is needed in many more words. This is totally related to the grammatical gender sense.
    2. Running queries for people who appear on Wikidata and have a certain occupation, live in a certain country, have or don't have a Wikipedia article, and sorting them by gender. An often-repeated example is "What is the biggest city in the world the mayor of which is a woman?". This is useful for statistics, editathons, verifying data integrity, etc. Here, a human's sex is also irrelevant, and a gender-only propoerty can do this job perfectly. If someone wants to look up transgender mayors, this can be covered by another property, as already proposed in Wikidata:WikiProject_LGBT/gender. (It makes sense to me to also cover intersex people in a separate property, so neither gender nor sex would be used for that, although I might be wrong.)
    There may be other use cases, but I cannot think of any at the moment.
    So, one solution to translate the name of the property unambigusly can be to use the word that is used for describing grammatical gender.
    For languages in which this doesn't work well, perhaps gender could be translated as something like "human sex" or "social sex" and "sex" could be something like "animal sex" or "biological sex". However, this would further strengthen the requirement to not use "sex" for humans at all. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose if it will be something that would be applied to everyone, because it will just be a lot of WD:BLP violations, an area where Wikidata is already very lax right now and the open invitation to bigots wouldn’t discourage it one bit. Support the renaming of ‘sex or gender’ into ‘gender’ and splitting off a separate ‘sex’ property for animals. As for problems when dealing with intersex people, I think the more kind solution is to do something like gender: female / biological trait: intersex (and maybe even gender: female / biological trait: transgender) or use the same schema trans people currently use. stjn[ru] 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's not clear how do we define "sex" for someone without access to their medical records. What if they are intersex but aren't aware of that? People are not routinely karyotyped. If we become suddenly very interested in whether a person is intersex or not, every male confessing to have hypospadias will be assigned "intersex" sex without any practical reason whatsoever etc. It is also unclear why do we need to state the sex altogether since Wikipedia is not a medical data library. Le Loy (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikidata is partly a medical data library. We host a lot of data that's of interest to the medical community. Wikidata generally works in a way to allow different people to use it for different purposes. ChristianKl❫ 11:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
What if they are intersex but aren’t aware of that? Then we have no statement. This property is, per the motivation section, for cases where the sex is notably different from the gender, which to me presupposes that the two are known to differ. If someone goes through their entire life without being aware of being intersex, I’d say their sex isn’t notable and we don’t need a statement for it. As for hypospadias, I’m not familiar with the condition, but enwiki says the presence of hypospadias alone is not enough to classify a person as intersex, so I don’t see why that would constitute a “sex” statement either. (I suppose it would be a medical condition (P1050), if publicly known, notable and not in conflict with WD:BLP.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Comment I am afraid, there is one big misunderstanding. In many languages is primary meaning of sex or gender (P21) in biological sense (male, female). And the word gender have the psycho-sociological meaning (trans- and others). English maybe now prefer word gender for the first case, but majority of non-english speakers means this word for second case.

It seems to me, there is support for splitting this property, but P21 should stay binary (and biological) (male, female, hermaphrodite) and the new one should be for other cases (trans*, neutral, intersex, genderqueer, etc..) Do you agree? JAn Dudík (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Most Western languages do mean gender in the social sense. Whether you use "he" or "she" to refer to a person is about how you interact with them in a sociological sense. It's important that a data user like Siri can deduce the gender of a person to use the right grammatical forms when speaking about a person. This is an important usecase that any solution shouldn't break. ChristianKl❫ 11:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is clearly a well-intentioned proposal, but I think creating a mechanism to say that someone has sex A but gender B is actually a mistake and a step backward. This proposal fails the most important criterion for a a wiki system, it is not idiot-proof (Q12981895) and would invite abuse. See a much more amenable propsal at Property talk:P21#New proposal, which is I think 80% of where we want to get to.--Pharos (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same meaning in too many Asian languages, if there are some little languages who consider both as different, better to use qualifiers to handle. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support We can't stop to add data because some people thinks that it could be subject of harassment, or because some languages don't have right words for describing the property. --Tinker Bell 04:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose in favour of several more specific properties or community-recommended property-qualifier combination patterns, and possible restriction to nonhumans as discussed above. Both humans and nonhumans have many measurements that collectively constitute sex, and these can contradict or even have little to do with one another (karyotypes were mentioned, but there are also sex-linked genes on the autosomal chromosomes for which sequencing or genotyping is the test, and there are macroanatomical measures as well such as the configuration of genitalia). I concur with the sentiment mentioned that ultimately the number of entities for which any of those measurements would be useful/appropriate for publication is limited (which is not in and of itself a reason to deny property creation, since that presents an opportunity for exhaustive documentation; but is important to keep in mind during discussion). Arlo Barnes (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. While we need to have a certain level of cultural sensitivity towards those cultures which place priority on gender identity and consider biological sex to be a private and mostly irrelevant matter, we can't reasonably duplicate the entire P21 dataset of millions of statements, nor can we just prohibit all data on gender identity or otherwise limit our work to one cultural viewpoint. We can't just take the approach of blood type (P1853) (where part of the world considers it a basic fact about the person, and the rest consider it a private medical matter). Situations where the proposed property would add differences are sufficiently unusual that which we're able to handle with one property without difficulty. The close of a small six-year-old thread does not make consensus, or override all the much larger discussions on the topic since. --Yair rand (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Yair rand: There would not be a need to duplicate the P21 dataset. P21 would simply be renamed "gender", and "sex" would only be used in rare circumstances (notable individual animals, intersex persons, etc.). What larger discussions on this topic would this proposal override? Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Just as the fact that some cultures consider gender to be significant means that we can't universally omit that data, the fact that many cultures consider sex to be significant means that we can't universally omit that data either. We've had endless discussion of this, including much from the discussions surrounding the original change from P21 being labelled just "sex" to "sex or gender". --Yair rand (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose In Polish (Q809) there is no clear distinction between the "gender" and "sex" nouns when it comes to describing person's gender or sex. Simillar to @Esquilo, Wolverène: I do not see how this would help this community. Nadzik (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I am also not sure if discussion with only few opinions (last comment being from 2013) and closed in 2019 counts as en:Consensus decision-making Nadzik (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • We should also remember that splitting "gender" and "sex" may allow trolls to harass intersex people on Wikidata. It would just require to assign to an intersex person this property with "male organism" or "female organism". Nadzik (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nadzik: I don't think your assertion is correct. While there is no native Polish term for gender, it seems the Polish language has borrowed the English term in order to establish such a distinction. Polish Wikipedia has separate articles for pl:Gender and pl:Płeć, and it's easy to find websites in Polish that discuss the difference between the two concepts, such as this. In fact, it seems that the University of Warsaw named "gender" the Word of the Year back in 2013: Kaldari (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nadzik: leaving aside the question of whether Polish really has no way to express this distinction (see Kaldari’s comment above), or whether it will stay that way (languages evolve, after all): I don’t think this is a valid argument against the property proposal. Just because Polish, or any language for that matter, doesn’t have separate terms for two concepts, doesn’t mean that we can’t be allowed to distinguish between these concepts at all. For instance, English does not distinguish between human and animal/plant sexes; but because some languages do (see archived discussion), Wikidata has separate items for male (Q6581097) and male organism (Q44148), as well as for female (Q6581072) and female organism (Q43445), even though their English labels can only express that difference by tacking an additional descriptor (“organism”) onto the same base word (“male”/“female”). --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong support I think the current property is ambigious. It should align with what the source says (or implies) in the cultural context of the source. For better or worse, English speakers have two ways to describe what may be the same thing in other languages. If that is the case, they can pick whichever one is most appropriate. U+1F360 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   CommentThis proposal starts with an entirely incorrect premise: that "consensus was reached" in the discussion at Property_talk:P21#Separate_fields_for_'sex'_and_'gender'. However that discussion with only about five participants took place not 'in many years', but in October and November 2013. At that time, P21 was just about 'sex', whatever that meant. In the meantime, there was a much longer discussion at Property_talk:P21#Transgender_.2F_Cisgender_changes with more participants, many viewpoints and aspects and a clear conclusion in Januari 2014, hence after the above, to combine bots aspects in one property P21 named 'gender or sex'. It is I think this proposal has a false start, so I am inclined to vote   Oppose because Kaldari didn't address the issues brought up earlier. The proposal should go back to the talk page. Bever (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I undid the 'closing' of a discussion which was long overdue. Also, I think I agree more with the arguments contra than pro. Certainly agreeing that a sensible way of getting along with this issue is needed, I am not convinced that a new property is the right way.
    1. What was actually wrong with having more than 1 value for a person in one property, using qualifiers, like discussed here and already possible (although a constraint violation message pops up).
    2. Having two properties is not 'foolproof', as somebody above already warned, as many users will confuse both properties and put the data at the wrong place. Also note that other languages than English often use the same word in both meanings, using adjectives or compound nouns when needed. Also I fear that having two properties makes Wikidata more vulnerable for vandalism by people opposing the 'gender ideology' as they call it.
    3. The idea seems to be to use the new property only for people where having different values for sex and gender would be relevant. Not only this could be achieved with qualifiers in P21 as well, it means emphasizing transgender and intersex people as an exception, so it is not a step forward for gender diversity, although it is meant that way. See also this remark at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender: "that notability criterion would seem to easily skew toward notability of transness and non-notability of cisness".
    4. When a historical person gave birth to a child, it is reasonable to conclude that she was a woman, biologically. The gender identity (as far as that aspect did aspect at the time) might be unknown. For people in recent time, it might be the other way around. Therefore the property 'sex or gender' combines both, so it can be filled for most people.
    5. In fact there are even more than 2 sides to 'sex/gender': gender identification, gender expression, legal gender, chromosomal sex, birth sex, hormonal sex, and having certain organs. Therefore I still tend to think using more than one value (when needed) in one property is the best choice. Bever (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support: No rename. A long transition period would be needed. While we are at it, it might make sense for them to be "sex" and "gender identity". I think we would need a more detailed proposal and guidelines before doing this, hence the weak support. This topic is highly controversial nowadays, and going for it without decent guidelines would result in infinite warring. --MarioGom (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In the rare event that we know the person's sex in addition to their gender, we can specify that with items like cisgender male (Q15145778), transgender male (Q2449503), assigned female at birth (Q99485785), etc. Sex and gender are indeed separate concepts, but the line between them is fuzzy and having two properties would just create confusion. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment those interested in this discussion may also be interested in the conversation on Project Chat about using <subclass of> “male” or “female” for pairs and groups of people. - PKM (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support two different concepts, two properties Nepalicoi (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I think this separation is a good idea. I also think we should add a property which is "gender modality" [1][2][3][4]. Examples of gender modality (which is a different concept than gender identity) include cisgender and transgender. With this in mind, I think we could programmatically support separation of "transgender female" into gender modality "transgender" and gender "female". For instance, Kim Petras (Q60964) currently has "sex or gender" as "transgender female". Her gender is just "female" though (and should be noted as such), meaning that her gender modality ("transgender") will no longer be included. This will also help facilitate programmatic searching for cis men, cis women, trans men, and trans women, women (including cis and trans), and men (including cis and trans) without misidentifying their gender. Superraptor123 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support must have. Worldm99 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i don't see a problem with the current situation BrokenSegue (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment When will we reach consensus? let me summarise the votes:
Votes regarding creating a new property "sex"
weak oppose 2 weak support 5
oppose 11 support 11
strong oppose 2 strong support 3
Total Oppose 15 Total Support 19

Would anyone like to reconsider, so we can move forward? @Jura1, GZWDer, Robin van der Vliet, Kaldari, Lucas Werkmeister, Ladsgroup: Germartin1 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

context of deathEdit


Prior discussion:

We currently have no good way to model the context in which a person died. As a result it's not listed on items such as George Floyd (Q95677819) which makes it hard to query for all instances of US police violence. Sometimes constructions with instance of (P31) are used for holocaust victims but it would be more desireable to not overload instance of (P31) for those as well and have a decidated property.

I used the new item US police violence (Q96442197) to be able to neutrally describe a situation without making a judgement about whether the use of force is excessive (given that's criminal, such claims should ideally be sourced with court judgements). It might be possible to import data about fatal shootings from which make no judgement about whether or not the use of force was justified or excessive.

I put the country in the item because it's not just important that a US citizen was killed but also that the killing happened in the US. We might also have narrower items for individual cities. ChristianKl❫ 11:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


  •   Support. I've felt we needed something like this for a long time. I've added a couple more examples of how it could be used - someone who died during a specific battle, a rebellion, a disaster. Some items use eg "cause of death" for things like this but that's not strictly right, I think. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Those examples seem good. ChristianKl❫ 22:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral; sounds a bit vague. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
  •   Comment. I have never fully understood the difference between cause of death (P509) and manner of death (P1196), having always been trying to understand which one of the two is supposed to do what the proposal suggests a third property should. So I guess I have my answer now – none of them so far! Thierry Caro (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There's prior art in . Given our general naming I like expressing it like I did in the proposal. ChristianKl❫ 14:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment for a specific event it makes sense, like a battle, however generally "(US) Police violence" doesn't seem to fit, why not George Floyd protests (Q95965839) ~~
George Floyd (Q95677819) didn't die in George Floyd protests (Q95965839). His death caused George Floyd protests (Q95965839) which is a very different relationship. It also doesn't help with the use-case of querying for people who died to US police violence. ChristianKl❫ 14:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes true, I was just seeing it the social context, so why US police violence, not police violence in general or why not Black Lives matter Germartin1 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Given subclass relationships you can query for police violence (Q96441150) even when the item is noted as US police violence. If you only care for Black victim you can narrow your query via ethnic group (Q41710). I consider it very desireable that there's a clear way to query for all deaths by police violence in a certain city and that would not be possible by setting the context as Black Lives matter. That said, I don't think there should be a single value constraint and it's fine if somebody who likes to think in terms of Black Lives matter and maybe also care for violence that's not directly done by police officiers where Black people are victims to set Black Lives matter as an additional value. ChristianKl❫ 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support more to the point than "significant event" that is currently used a lot to model this. All for it! Moebeus (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not sure. I would use it for the project I'm working on collecting profiles from newspapers on Covid-19 victims but I think I would also continue to add it as a significant event since there are also profiles on people who recover, and it remains a significant event to those they leave behind. The entire group of people impacted by an event can be tagged the same way. That a significant event strongly correlated with the person's death can already be deduced from the proximity in time. 1Veertje (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I think systematic use of "significant event" would work as an alternative, but only if we can work out a consistent qualifier to clearly say "death connected to this event", and I don't think we currently have that. Relying on making the connection by date would get tricky for things with very long time-spans (eg it would be good to record people who died in the context of the Troubles (Q815436), but that lasted 30+ years) and might not be possible for generic events without specific timeframes like "police violence". Andrew Gray (talk)
  • cancer death: #1/#2 we have a reference for both, #3: use "cause of death",
  • red heads killed on Mondays: #1 references are available, if #2 would be a yes, #3 would indicate to query manner of death, date of death and hair color instead. --- Jura 17:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose. The 'context of death' is rarely an obvious thing. Anne Frank, for instance, was clearly a victim of the Holocaust, but equally validly the victim of antisemitism in general, German antisemitism in particular, xenophobia at its most general and Nazism in particular. And that's a clear-cut case in comparison with instances where one context is the pretext or means of another, such as a regime forcibly conscripting a certain ethnic group, or where multiple parties have different contexts to effect someone's death. For the latter, consider the killing of Hafizullah Amin (Q63831) as part of Operation Storm-333 (Q975430): the proximate contexts alone are numerous – the dispute between the Khalq and the Parcham, rivalries inside the Khalq, the Soviet Union's desire for a more reliable leader in Afghanistan, Soviet expansionism and so on. The biggest problem is that these reasons can often be quite controversial in a way that is not capable of sensible resolution. If Country A attacks Country B in retaliation for Country B's claimed violations of its sovereignty, is the death of an A-ese soldier at the hand of a B-ian unit taking place in the context of 'B's aggression against A', the 'A-B war' or 'A's aggression against B'? There's a Pandora's box here that is best left unopened. Equally, there might be quite valid disagreement as to the attribution of systemic causes. Bonnie and Clyde were in a sense victims of police violence, and in a sense their deaths also took place in the context of a crime spree they were wholly responsible for. I am unsure if this concept, as broad as it is, could be useful. Narrower incarnations, such as 'died at/in' (for battles, events, terrorist attacks and the like) could cover some ground. So could 'notable events'. The issue of deaths is already controversial enough, e.g. a number of people murdered during purges or the Holocaust were killed under the color of law and so their manner of death lists 'capital punishment' when arguably murder might be more appropriate. Including the context of death would invite a much more complex situation. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ari T. Benchaim: how would your samples pass through the tests suggested above? --- Jura 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The fact that you can make broader and less broad claims is generally true for a lot of relationships in Wikidata. We usually take by convention the most specific one. ChristianKl❫ 21:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I appreciate that. My key concern is that there can be more than insignificant disagreement - and valid disagreement at that - as to what the most specific cause is. Is the Nazi repression of dissent or the German resistance the more 'proximate' context of the Scholls' deaths, for instance?

zodiac signEdit


Intended for persons or character where no date of birth (P569) or birthday (P3150) are known Trade (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav: Thoughts?--Trade (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


  •   Neutral – but if implemented, a constraint should be in place disallowing date of birth (P569) and birthday (P3150) on the same item. --Emu (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support - this might be relevant for fictional characters from some traditions. For (real) persons probably mostly for those without a birth date (if the astrological sign is reported by the individual). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Neutral seems like a very special case, I dont see too much use here. I agree with Emu, it should be used sparingly when implemented. --Hannes Röst (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a partial oppose as signs are not encyclopedic. For example, I am personally offended when people say I have a sign (it is a kind of prejudice, after all). Fictional characters can have signs, though, if their fictional universe considers signs with real effects. I'd support that a property with a constraint for fictional entities and a requirement of a reference. TiagoLubiana (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree with Emu's comment. --Tinker Bell 21:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support but only for fictional characters or people who's birthdate is unknown --Shisma (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not an expert. but what about non western zodiac signs? --Shisma (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Shisma: Good question. There are all sorts of differences between western and Chinese zodiac signs, but the main difference for Wikidata is that western zodiac signs work on a somewhat monthly basis while Chinese zodiac signs work on a somewhat yearly basis. So if somebody is a Capricorn, she may be born in 1980 or 1981 or any year which is somewhat realistic. Therefore, it’s impossible to use birthday (P3150) as it has an item datatype, that is, you can’t really be fuzzy about the exact date. However, if you are a Monkey in Chinese astrology, you can be born in 1980-ish – or in 1968-ish or 1992-ish. In most situations, it’s possible to assess if somebody is around 29 or around 40 or around 53 years old. Therefore we could use date of birth (P569) (point in time datatype) with earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326). --Emu (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. For outside observers it would look as supporting pseudo science. The idea that sometimes a person might only report his or her astrological sign insted of date or year of birth seems irrelevant to me because this personal claim, being not based on any documents or evidences, is always unreliable. Андрей Романенко (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Seems like a very narrow use case, open to abuse (we already have people abusing constellation (P59)), biased towards Western supersitions, and looks like we're supporting pseudo-science. Bovlb (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support This property might be interesting for a person having in his/her knowledge graph a zodiac sign so the information that fans are searching is showing way more ealsely on search results. Also, other databses site already have a feature like this.
  •   Weak oppose, if created it should be all astrological signs and not just zodiacal/occidental one and the constraint should be closely monitored so we don't end up with a de facto redundant use with other properties. Also references should strongly advised here (as this is personnal data, RGPD and all that, again like the properties for birth). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question do we have a good query that derives it from a person's date of birth or birthday statement? --- Jura 14:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

code nameEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptioncode word or name used, sometimes clandestinely, to refer to another name, word, project, or person; mainly for military purposes, or in espionage
Representscode name (Q590490)
Data typeMonolingual text
Domainitem (human (Q5))
Example 1Andrej Babiš (Q10819807) → Bureš ( used by (P1535) StB (Q2164269), source:
Example 2Martin Schlaff (Q85905) → Landgraf ( used by (P1535) Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Q153846))
Example 3Ludvík Svoboda (Q310000) → Hroznatínský ( used by (P1535) Czechoslovak army in exile (Q103439421), source:
See also


There is only nickname (P1449) for now, which is intended for publicly used nicknames. The new property is intended for code names created by secret services or armies, which were secret and the person concerned often didn't know the code name. For now, there are almost 10,000 items with code name created by the Czechoslovak secret police, which inaccurately use nickname (P1449) instead of the proposed "code name" property. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification: Tobias1984 Vojtěch Dostál YjM Jklamo Walter Klosse Sintakso Matěj Suchánek JAn Dudík Skim Frettie Jura1913 Mormegil Jedudedek marv1N Sapfan Daniel Baránek Draceane Michal Josef Špaček (WMCZ) The photonaut Hartasek Zelenymuzik Gumruch Shadster DenisaCZ M.Rejha Janek Jan Kameníček Eva Vele Linda.jansova   Notified participants of WikiProject Czech Republic --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


  •   Support --Zelenymuzik (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Okino (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support with some ajustements
  •   Support Jedudědek (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support with eru's adjustments. This is definitely beyond the scope of CZ project. --YjM | dc 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, agree with eru --Sapfan (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in addition to nickname (P1449) we also have pseudonym (P742) which already specifies "code name" as a potential use. The use for a specific military (Czech secret police) can be added as qualifiers. Would that not be sufficient? --Hannes Röst (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Hannes Röst, I think pseudonym (P742) should only be apply on Q5, the codename could be for anything, generaly Q5, projet, military operation... (I don't know why award (Q618779) is allowed on pseudonym (P742) ) — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 07:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi Eru, right now all examples are only Q5 and the proposal needs to be changed to accomodate that. Also, what is the point of Operation Desert Storm (Q2349281) → Desert Storm ? If the codename is equal to the name of the item I wonder what the point is of using the property at all? --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
        Because a multinational force's operations might become known by the US and/or local name, but might have other code names, e.g. the first Gulf War is not just Operation Desert Storm but also Operation Granby, the intervention in Libya is Operation Harmattan (France), Operation Odyssey Dawn (US), Operation Mobile (Canada), Operation Ellamy (UK) and Operation Unified Protector (NATO) at the same time. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment there is also Property:P1638 with the English label "codename". For Nato codenames, there is NATO reporting name (P561). --- Jura 11:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment why not change the scope of Property:P1638 for all sorts of projects, facilities etc including military ones and use Property:P742 for codenames used for humans? --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    • We should avoid rescoping entities. That property is for a "temporary name of a product or project used during its development". This has nothing to do with what is proposed here. Obviously the label issue needs to be addressed (to avoid having two properties with nearly identical labels in English). See type locality (biology) (P5304) and type locality (geology) (P2695) for how it can be done. Inclusion in pseudonym (P742) doesn't seem impossible. --- Jura 09:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Let's just use working title (P1638) and pseudonym (P742), as suggested (I would also be OK with just using working title (P1638) for human (Q5)). — The Erinaceous One 🦔 07:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Supportworking title (P1638) seems to be quite specific for codenames in the creative industries. Codenames are used widely in other fields, e.g. Anadyr → Cuban Missile Crisis (Q128160) (ok, not strictly, but you get the idea), Cheget → Cheget (Q4536309), and we have Operation Iraqi Freedom, Op Telic, Operazione Antica Babilonia, and so on → Iraq War (Q545449). Code names may pertain to objects but also to projects (e.g. OXCART was the code name not for the U-2 aircraft but its development, Project AZORIAN was the code name for obtaining the Soviet K-129 sub), events, locations (ABERDEEN → Manhton (Q15244801)), abstract concepts like phase lines (e.g. Battle of Phase Line Bullet (Q3636571)) and closed cities in the Eastern Bloc (e.g. Tomsk-7 → Seversk (Q193909)). This would be a really useful attribute to have (although for NATO reporting names, which are NOT code names, I would stick to NATO reporting name (P561)). Pseudonyms are different from code names in that a pseudonym is an 'equivalent name', a personal name used in lieu of another personal name (e.g. Herbert Frahm → Willy Brandt (Q2514)). A code name for, say, a military operation is not a pseudonym, but the actual name of the thing. There is no 'other' name to it the way there is for a pseudonymous author or a soldier using a nom de guerre or kunya. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolja21 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Notable roleEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionRoles in performing arts that the person is particularly known for.
Data typeItem
Example 1Alice Marriott (Q60557333)Prince Hamlet (Q2447542)
Example 2Françoise Fabian (Q456668)Mata Hari (Q82180)
Example 3Elizabeth Taylor (Q34851)Cleopatra (Q635)
Planned useWill be added to the infobox in Commons categories
See alsonotable work (P800): notable scientific, artistic or literary work, or other work of significance among subject's works


This came up at en:Talk:Mary Bulkley, where we want to be able to query for other 18th century women who have played Hamlet, but that data isn't currently stored in Wikidata. It would also be more generally useful for describing important roles that actors have played, within their item rather than having to use inverses, which can then be used in infoboxes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


Thank you for starting this property proposal. I'm aware that Elizabeth Taylor is especially known for playing ̃Cleopatra, i.e. when you think of Taylor, you might initially think primarily of the Taylor-Burton relationship, the diamonds, and the Cleopatra role (I don't know anything about Fabian). But the public today don't think about Mary Bulkley in respect to anything at all, since she is largely forgotten. In her lifetime, she was known in her prime for her beauty, her scandalous private life, and the Shakespearian comedies. It's certainly worth having a list of actresses who played Hamlet in the past, when one is examining a particular general trend. But I don't believe that Mary Bulkley was ever defined by the Hamlet role in the way that e.g. Alice Marriott was. Marriott was a serious actress who took the role seriously. Even if Bulkley took the role seriously herself, she did attract a rather frivolous audience who might prefer to remember her for her comedies. So in your list above, I suggest that you substitute Marriott for Bulkley as the Hamlet actress. Apart from that, I think your idea of a new property, which associates actresses with their defining roles, is a good one. Storye book (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, changed in the list of examples, although I think it would still be added to the Mary Bulkley item. Also, it wouldn't be a single value - any notable roles that the actor has played could be included. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Support Since there already exists a property for notable work (P800), a property for notable character roles would make sense. There need not be a hierarchy between the act of creating a work and the act of executing it on stage. Here are a few thoughts about this proposed property:

  • The label or the description should be clear enough to avoid ambiguity with other types of roles than character roles (i.e. a position held within an organization - which ought to be stated with position held (P39)). While misuse can be avoided with a type constraint, it is better to reduce ambiguity with a clear description.
  • Notability is subjective. In order to avoid unsubstantiated or self-promotional statements, references should be required.
  • start time (P580) and end time (P582) would be suitable qualifiers.
  • If the notability was substantiated by an award, the character roles for which the performer was given an award should probably be stated as a qualifier.
  • I don't know if the adoption of this property will ever be broad enough to reach the completeness required to run queries. But the property might still meet other needs.

Fjjulien (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  • notable work (P800) is generally used for this. --- Jura 06:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    • That seems ambiguous, as that could refer to character creation, authoring books about them, etc. (Mostly I've seen it used for books/other publications, which is what I would have expected.) I think having 'role' explicitly makes it much clearer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Not really, the role would generally have a performer statement with the person. Notable works aren't necessarily linked by author (P50), especially for films. --- Jura 09:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for art.--Arbnos (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)



I wanted to document the commentators/announcers for the Olympic Games after I came across this list.

The proposed usage of the property on the event itself probably isn't the best since there are many broadcasters from the many broadcasting agencies that are covering the Olympics, so more-specific linked items called "NBC coverage of swimming at the 2020 Olympic games" should probably be created.

In-general, this property is a important one for all broadcasted sporting events and other types of events.

MisterSynergy Thierry Caro Vanbasten_23 Malore Сидик из ПТУ Phikia Mathieu Kappler Supertrinko Gymnicus Lee Vilenski Erokhin   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports

Lectrician1 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


  • It's an interesting proposition. Before I evaluate the cunning quality, I have one more question: What qualifications do you want to work with? Because it's not just NBC commentators who report the Olympic Games. On German television, the swimming competitions are commented on by Tom Bartels (Q1403174) (ARD (Q49653)) and Volker Grube (ZDF (Q48989)), among others. Experts such as Christian Keller (Q556094) (ZDF (Q48989)) are also involved in the competitions. How would you like to fit these different activities and TV channels into the qualifications? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Gymnicus: I would make new items for each broadcasting agency called "<agency name> coverage of <event name>" and then link those items using broadcast by (P3301).
    For example (as I explained in the motivation), I would:
    1. Create an item called "NBC coverage of swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics".
    2. Use the new "commentator" property on that item.
    3. Create a statement broadcast by (P3301) "NBC coverage of swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics" on swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics (Q39080758) and add all other broadcaster items to that property as well.
    -- Lectrician1 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    Then what is the difference from using presenter (P371)? Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    The same situation in Russia where we have up to five commentators by event. Moreover, years later, someone can make a retrospective with a new commentary on the old video where the participant of the competition will be one of the commentators. My opinion is that property constraint (P2302) for this property should be Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm thinking about its possible uses in sports in general. For example "Trans7 coverage of 2021 MotoGP". So i strongly support it. But, how about its inverse property? I think we need that too. Rtnf (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    A inverse property would not be appropriate. Some announcers cover tens to thousands of games in their careers. If we ever got around to documenting that many, we would have way too many statements the the announcer's item. I'm against inverse items in-general. Lectrician1 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    But most of commentators on my country dont have that many. It's pretty much equivalent to notable work (P800) Rtnf (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gymnicus, Сидик из ПТУ: I've revised the examples with new items to document the commentators per-program. I've also basically made a new data model for documenting broadcasts.

You can browse these items and realize that they are linked to their event using main subject (P921). These events then link back to the broadcast item using broadcast by (P3301). These events are also linked to a master-broadcast item I created (NBC coverage of the 2020 Summer Olympics (Q107718731)) using part of (P361).

You might notice that this kind of disrupts the definition of broadcast by (P3301) as it is now used for individual broadcast programs and not just the general broadcaster themselves. Maybe in the future if this model is used more-widely, broadcast by (P3301) could be renamed to "broadcast".

Hope this helps and you'll support the property!

Lectrician1 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently putting this proposal on hold for possible consideration of using cast member (P161) instead. --Lectrician1 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gymnicus, Сидик из ПТУ, Rtnf: Okay, I think I've decided to broaden the scope of use of cast member (P161) to include any type of broadcast program. That way we do not need this proposed property.

I have shown it's use for swimming and athletics (check them out!). Does this work?

I have also created a new property proposal broadcast of, to solve that definition/usage problem I mentioned about above.

--Lectrician1 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Use presenter (P371). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lectrician1: Even if you don't want to implement it with this property now, I still find the property right. @Сидик из ПТУ: From my point of view, the propertypresenter (P371) cannot be used for this. In my opinion, there are differences between a moderator and a commentator. I'll try to explain it with two examples. One of the examples is from the field of sports and the other from the field of music.
  1. When football is broadcast, there is usually reporting before the game, during the half-time break and after the game and this is moderated by a person, i.e. a moderator guides you through this reporting. The game itself is not moderated by this person, but is commented on by another person, so the commentator reports on the game.
  2. The Eurovision Song Contest will be broadcast to many countries. The show itself is always led by one or more moderators on site. At least here in Germany we not only hear the moderators, but also a commentator who, unlike the moderators, speaks in German and not in English. The commentator not only translates what has been said, but also gives assessments of the songs. The actual moderators do not do the latter and they are certainly not allowed to do it.
As just described, there are significant differences between a moderator and a commenter. That is why I think it makes perfect sense if this property existed in order to make such a distinction more easily possible. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: Wait but why not use cast member (P161)? You didn't really explain that.
I say to use cast member because it makes the most sense when there are multiple roles that might be filled for a broadcast and the property easily fits in for any type of entertainment video program. --Lectrician1 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lectrician1: I have not spoken out against the property cast member (P161). You can take it, although I don't find it very suitable either. But I understand your thoughts behind it. Perhaps in the context of how you handle it in the data object NBC coverage of swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics (Q107718705) it would be better to use the property significant person (P3342). --Gymnicus (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


Sauvons nos tombes person IDEdit


Benoît Prieur
Ash Crow
Thierry Caro
Nomen ad hoc
Marianne Casamance
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Mathieu Kappler
Archives nationales DJI
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC).


Andrew Gray Andy Mabbett Bamyers99 Ijon Vladimir Alexiev Nomen ad hoc Epìdosis emu Alexmar983 Simon Cobb Pmt Mathieu Kappler MasterRus21thCentury   Notified participants of WikiProject Biographical IdentifiersMasterRus21thCentury (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ANPI person IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of a person of National Association of Italian Partisans (Q3626661)'s Web portal
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[a-z][-a-z]*
Example 1Primo Levi (Q153670)primo-levi
Example 2Sandro Pertini (Q1233)alessandro-pertini
Example 3Rosselli brothers (Q3752399)carlo-e-nello-rosselli
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Formatter URL$1
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/ANPI person numeric ID

National Association of Italian Partisans (Q3626661) is the main association founded by participants of the Italian resistance against the Italian Fascist regime and the subsequent Nazi occupation during World War II. I think this would be a relevant identifier for a person.

Proposed aliases:

  • Donne e Uomini della Resistenza ID
  • Partigiani d'Italia ID

Airon90 ValterVB Alexmar983 Epìdosis Pietro Jura Beta16 Yiyi Sannita Camelia 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 Giacomo Alessandroni divudì   Notified participants of WikiProject Italy --Horcrux (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


Discord user numeric IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumeric identifier for a Discord user; use as qualifier for P9101 "Discord username"
RepresentsDiscord username
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values[1-9][0-9]{16,19}
Example 1Pokimane (Q55956238) (pokimane#0001) → 95641937423372288
Example 2Andrew Huang (Q17125256) (Andrew Huang#1802) → 281910226452742145
Example 3SiIvaGunner (Q96419348) (SiIvaGunner#5105) → 220686448398041089
Example 4Ninja (Q50825725) (Ninja#8506) → 93452392116260864
Planned useAs qualifier for Discord username (P9101)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1 (only works for users who could message a particular user at some point or share a server with that user)
See alsoDiscord server numeric ID (proposal)


Discord usernames (both the name part and the discriminant part) are unstable, but each user has a permanent ID that can't be changed. This property would be similar to Twitter user numeric ID (P6552).

The user ID can be taken from the URL of a user's icon. Turning on Developer Mode (Settings > Appearance > Advanced) allows IDs to be copied from the context menu. Third-party websites may use user IDs; (and probably other similar services) can be used to look up a username from a numeric ID. Overcast07 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


  •   Comment We shouldprobably get some more use of Discord username (P9101) before creating additional qualifiers @Overcast07:. Unfortunately i cannot find any --Trade (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Trade: I think you could find some by joining the servers that already have a Discord invite ID (P9078) in Wikidata, but I don't know if it would be difficult to find more. The "citation needed constraint" seems hard to satisfy, since most of the user IDs would be taken directly from those servers and wouldn't be posted externally. It's not hard to imagine why someone with a Wikipedia article might not want to be directly contacted through Discord by strangers. (The disclaimer in Ninja's server: "Yes Ninja is in this server, he is the owner. Do not ask for or tag Ninja's Discord name. He appears offline and does not respond to pings or messages." His account currently appears online, though, so I was able to get the ID and username.) Overcast07 (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    The subject's user name NEEDS to be published outside of Discord by the subject himself, otherwise we are violating Wikidata:Living_people#Statements_that_may_violate_privacy. Please see Q65115154#Q65115154 for an example on how sourcing can be done. --Trade (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    If you have trouble finding sources you can try and ask the their user name on Twitter or Reddit --Trade (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @Trade: If the information needs to be available externally (and if publicly accessible Discord servers don't count), it might not make sense to have P9101 or this property. Of the current six uses of P9101, only one has a reference, and I don't think you would be able to find a reference for the others. I imagine if you asked those people for their Discord username you might well be ignored (if they wanted to be contacted that way they would have already posted it). Overcast07 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This seems unnecessary and likely to be privacy infringing. JesseW (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I have a list of around 180 usernames and numeric IDs of YouTubers and other celebrities. I don't want to add all the usernames since it was a while ago and they change sometimes. But numeric IDs do not change, so I could set up a mix'n'match catalog for them. AntisocialRyan (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Stalker author IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an author on the collective literary blog Stalker
RepresentsStalker (Q105968629)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Paul Claudel (Q295830)paul+claudel
Example 2Marien Defalvard (Q3293006)marien+defalvard
Example 3Abel Bonnard (Q318391)abel+bonnard
Formatter URL$1

Benoît Prieur
Ash Crow
Thierry Caro
Nomen ad hoc
Marianne Casamance
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Mathieu Kappler
Archives nationales DJI
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC).


  Comment Could you add a motivation for this? It looks like an otherwise unremarkable blog, from what (very little) I can tell. And they aren't identifiers, they are just tags. JesseW (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support, an important property for literature.--Arbnos (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive Alsharekh person ID

TheTVDB character IDEdit


We already have ID (P4835) for television series, TheTVDB episode ID (P7043), and TheTVDB person ID (P7920) in TheTVDB (Q15616250), but they also have entries for characters which need a separate property. TheTVDB is used by many apps and services, including Plex (Q7204887) and Kodi (Q919760), so being able to link characters to Wikidata and other movie/TV databases would be quite useful. BellaYunita (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


  •   Support, an important property for characters.--Arbnos (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A property for these character entries would be good. But I'm unsure about the proposed values. For all other entries on TheTVDB, we use their numerical IDs. Using just the slug (Q99601940) could cause problems in the future, since IIRC they've already changed their URLs a few times in the past. Problem is, that I can't find a formatter URL for the numerical IDs that are currently used in the URL. Which doesn't surprise me, since the formatter URLs we're currently using for the other TheTVDB properties also weren't propertly documented somehwere and IIRC were only found in posts on their official (now closed) forum. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is Sherlock Holmes (Q4653) really the same as the sherlock in [5] ? Would every sherlock from every TV incarnation be linked to Sherlock Holmes (Q4653)? What about ones that differ greatly? I'm also concerned about using the slug like this. Also this DB seems to contain minimal information about characters. I'm skeptical. BrokenSegue (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Trade (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Many of the examples are currently returning a 404. Stability/persistence issues? --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

PubFacts author IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an author on the PubFacts website
RepresentsPubFacts (Q107555574)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem; human (Q5)
Allowed values[A-Za-zÀ-ž\-\+]+
Example 1Clemens Cabernard (Q47503516)Clemens+Cabernard
Example 2Lars Aabakken (Q52767738)Lars+Aabakken
Example 3Jyri-Johan Paakki (Q82827650)Jyri-Johan+Paakki
Example 4Daniel W. Pack (Q96093492)Daniel+W+Pack
Example 5Amy E. B. Packard (Q84354031)Amy+E+Packard and Amy+Eb+Packard
Example 6Ana Maria Waaga-Gasser (Q107555771)Ana+Maria+Waaga-Gasser and Ana+M+Waaga-Gasser and Anna-Maria+Waaga-Gasser
Example 7Esther Rodríguez González (Q107556076)Esther+Rodríguez+Gonzalez
Planned useadding to items for University of Washington faculty and researchers
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1
Applicable "stated in"-valuePubFacts (Q107555574)


PubFacts (Q107555574) is a website whose goal is to bring together scientific and medical related data in one place, with in-depth data on over 20 million PubMed citations and scientific publication authors. PubFacts author pages include links to scientific publications by the person. Some authors have more than one PubFacts page because their name has been published in different forms (see examples 5 and 6 above). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


  •   Support Mix'n'match catalog added (limited to 2K entries per initial letter). Gerwoman (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Lectrician1 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    •   Oppose per UWashPrincipalCataloger's comments below. Lectrician1 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for science.--Arbnos (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This doesn't seem like an identifier, it is just going by the particular name spelling, right? See for example Arthur+Smith which mixes up an "Arthur R. Smith", "Arthur D. Smith", and presumably many others. If this is a useful source in some other way then just add the URL somehow. We can get into real trouble if an "identifier" indicates two people are the same when they are not. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I do think this is an identifier, but it's a situation where the same person can have multiple IDs in one database. I am not aware if multiple people who have the same name have the same PubFacts author ID. It isn't unusual for entities to have the same identifier - this happens in Wikidata all the time. For example, the Library of Congress Subject Heading Publishers and publishing corresponds to two Wikidata items, one for the concept of publisher and the other for the activity of publishing. The same is true for the LCSH term Forests and forestry. If you don't want to think of the PubFacts author property as an ID, you could think of it as an access point to a database, which basically functions the same way as an ID. In library catalogs, the same person can be found under multiple access points. Not ideal, but it happens all the time. I could change the property to PubFacts author access point, but it would still be an external identifier. If the community thinks this would be better as PubFacts author URL, we could change it to that. I don't see much benefit of that, however. One would still have multiple values of URLs in some cases. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@UWashPrincipalCataloger: Jun Li has over 9000 publications. Seems unlikely. This isn't an identifier for individuals, at best it's an identifier for author name strings. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   SupportMasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose analysis by Arthur suggests that it's a search string, not an author identifier. --- Jura 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Epìdosis: as you already worked on mixnmatch:4611 --- Jura 23:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per ArthurPSmith. --Epìdosis 23:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


   Under discussion
DescriptionPerson ID of artists and other professionals from the contemporary Ibero-American art world, maintained by the online platform ARTEINFORMADO.
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Antonio López García (Q1257924)2030
Example 2Helga de Alvear (Q5704398)109405
Example 3Maykel Herrera Pacheco (Q6007667)13534
Example 4Guillermo Lorca García-Huidobro (Q17633482)38012
Example 5Soledad Lorenzo (Q29525006)171035
Number of IDs in source>100.000 (including galleries, museums, etc.), see "¿Qué es ARTEINFORMADO?". ARTEINFORMADO (in Spanish). Retrieved July 30, 2021.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1


ARTEINFORMADO is used as a reference in the contemporary Ibero-American art world. ARTEINFORMADO is subsidized by the Spanish Ministry of Culture and Sport (Q54909112). Tuestor (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


  •   Comment Is the capitalization strixtly neccessary?--Trade (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment. I've turned the identifiers into purely numerical ones. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose proposed format. Can there be a formattter url without an affiliate link or "wd" in the url? --- Jura 05:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The wd is only meant to be aa placeholder. See [6].--GZWDer (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

identifier for persons in Deutsche Digitale BibliothekEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionanalog zu Externer Identifikator "DDB-Item-Nummer" (de) – (Please translate this into English.)
RepresentsDDB Person ID (Q108000676)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterDDB
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values1[012]?\d{7}[0-9X]
Example 1Gerhard Schröder (Q2530)118570528
Example 2Angela Merkel (Q567)119545373
Example 3Helmut Kohl (Q2518)118564595
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usehinzufügen von DDB-Person-Nummer zu Personen
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1
See alsoGND ID (P227): identifier from an international authority file of names, subjects, and organizations (please don't use type n = name, disambiguation) - Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, DDB ID (P4948): identifier for items in Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek
Wikidata projectWikidata:WikiProject Germany

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherzo136 (talk • contribs) at 20:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC).


  • ?


YouTube MusicEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an artist on YouTube Music
RepresentsYouTube Music (Q28404534)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), singer (Q177220), record label (Q18127)
Allowed values[0-9A-Za-z_]{2,24}
Example 1Mari Kraimbrery (Q65153800)UCqWcxmaqW_79ftm3r-vuScg
Example 2Loboda (Q209926)UCLBA7aDwlEmhgoM1gdrjp1A
Example 3Ariana Grande (Q151892)UC0076UMUgEng8HORUw_MYHA
Formatter URL$1
See also


Property for YouTube Music. — Calvinn1 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


Actually, I have come to the realization that all YouTube Music channels are auto-generated by YouTube from tracks record labels provide to YouTube. I've never come across an artist that has the same YouTube Music channel they release music under and it is their same "primary" YouTube channel. Therefore, I support the property for the utility of distinguishment purposes. User:Lockal and User:Jura1, I'd suggest you change your vote along with me. And additionally, we could have properties for YouTube Music playlists and songs, since they too, are autogenerated. Additionally, we could have properties for YouTube Music playlists and songs, since they too, are autogenerated. Lectrician1 (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
"all YouTube Music channels are auto-generated by YouTube" is not entirely correct. When artists publish their works, for example, via TuneCore, they can check up to 38 boxes, YouTube Music is just one of them. After that, TuneCore submits composition to YouTube with autogenerated ISRC, efficiently creating an autogenerated channel. Later on artists discover that they have maybe multiple autogenerated channels and may merge them into official channel by passing a specific challenge. Most of artists don't even care to create an official YouTube channel, others don't know about duplicates of autogenerated channels, that's why you don't see merged channels too often. An example of merged channel is [7]==[8]. --Lockal (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lockal Ah yes, you are right. I didn't know exactly how merging channels worked so thank you!
But... if you search for "Lean Raine" in YouTube Music, it brings you to the same channel, but with a different id.
Then, if you plug in that ID to YouTube's site, you get their Topic channel, even though they're "merged". Kinda crazy right?
I guess this proves that there are still auto-generated channel IDs for artists that have merged their channels... So, there is still a use case for this propery. Lectrician1 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lockalany response? Lectrician1 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
YouTube Music provides generally a worse experience comparing to YouTube, even with ArtTracks due to missing comments section (and publication date, and description, which even for ArtTracks may contain a lot of useful information). So my suggestion is to: 1) mark ArtTracks with P1552 qualifier (so that smart client could suggest links to, 2) don't bother with marking YouTube videos available on at all, because YouTube Music provides a degraded experience, as I said earlier. If you are interested in automation, you could invent a new value for P1552 (something like "YouTube Music Video", subclass of music video (Q193977)), indicating that music video is available on both YouTube and YouTube Music, otherwise it is not worth the effort. --Lockal (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Spotify user IDEdit

GZWDer (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)



   Ready Create
Descriptionидентификатор персоналии на сайте журнала СтарХит (ru) – (Please translate this into English.)
RepresentsStarHit (Q104032536)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Ivan Urgant (Q442830)ivan-urgant
Example 2Brad Pitt (Q35332)bred-pitt
Example 3Andrey Malakhov (Q502325)andrey-malahov
Example 4Alla Pugacheva (Q80510)alla-pugacheva
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usefor usage in stated in (P248) and for Template:Authority control (Q3907614)
Number of IDs in sourceunknown
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1
Robot and gadget jobsMaybe check captures in Internet Archive for just in case?
Applicable "stated in"-valueyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Wikidata projectWikidata:WikiProject Russia


StarHit is one of the most famous Russian magazines dedicated to show business stars. The site has a section "Dossier of Stars" - it is dedicated primarily to famous singers, journalists and actors, as well as famous political figures. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


Author ID from the Modern Discussion websiteEdit

   Under discussion
RepresentsModern discussion (Q12186797)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Rizgar Akrawi (Q60914098)5
Example 2Burhan Ghalioun (Q82403)786
Example 3Sadiq Jalal al-Azm (Q113020)1863
Example 4Ralph Waldo Emerson (Q48226)
Example 5Crime and punishment (Q165318)
Example 6Iraqi Communist Party (Q1672366)
Example 7Mawtini (Q217987)
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].


(أضف حافزك لهذه الخاصية هنا.) عمر (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


  •   Comment Can you add the id values for examples 4 and later, they seem to be missing right now? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: Example: 4 to 7, These articles use the website as a reference. -- عمر (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support the website has an important impact in the Arab world--Michel Bakni (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC) playwright IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for a playwright on (Q29585873)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem; human (Q5) or organization (Q43229)
Allowed values[A-Z]\/[a-z0-9\-]+
Example 1Adam Peck (Q110276148)P/peck-adam
Example 2Wendy Wasserstein (Q450050)W/wasserstein-wendy
Example 3Anna Ziegler (Q24060513)Z/ziegler-anna.php
Example 4Alan Cumming (Q316629)C/cumming-alan
Example 5Counteé Cullen (Q1137066)C/cullen-countee-porter
Example 62headedpigeon (Q110285045)A/2headedpigeon
Example 72b Theatre Company (Q28233114)A/2b-theatre-company
Example 87:84 (Q4643770)A/784-theatre-company
Planned useadding to items created or edited
Number of IDs in source56,653 (
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1.php
See alsoproposals for play ID, play publisher ID, and literary agent ID; Les Archives du Spectacle person ID (P1977)
Applicable "stated in" (Q29585873)

MotivationEdit contains information on 56,653 playwrights and 193,348 of their plays and is an important source of information on contemporary playwrights. It covers modern playwrights and theater plays which have been written, adapted or translated, into English since the production of Look Back in Anger in 1956. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit person IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person on
Representsno label (Q110289718)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Albert Einstein (Q937)131375
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usefor usage in stated in (P248) and for Template:Authority control (Q3907614)
Number of IDs in sourceunknown
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1
Robot and gadget jobsMaybe check captures in Internet Archive for just in case?
See person ID (P9917)
Wikidata projectWikidata:WikiProject Russia, Biographical Identifiers


Will be useful for stated in (P248), contains valuable biographical data. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionидентификатор статьи на сайте Биограф.ру (ru) – (Please translate this into English.) (Q110290933)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), organization (Q43229)
Example 1Vladimir Mayakovsky (Q132964)znamenitosti/vladimir-mayakovskiy
Example 2Yandex (Q5281)company/yandex
Example 3Louis Pasteur (Q529)uchenie/louis-pasteur
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usefor usage in stated in (P248) and for Template:Authority control (Q3907614)
Number of IDs in sourceunknown
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1
Robot and gadget jobsMaybe check captures in Internet Archive for just in case?
Wikidata projectWikidata:WikiProject Russia

MotivationEdit was opened in October 2020. The site contains information about famous Russian and foreign personalities, as well as companies. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


ICPSR Personal Names Authority List IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for a person in the ICPSR Personal Names Authority List
RepresentsICPSR Personal Names Authority List (Q110305257)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem; human (Q5)
Allowed valuesa thirteen or a fourteen followed by 3 digits; regex: (13
Example 1Dean Acheson (Q214758)13735
Example 2Madeleine Albright (Q174438)13739
Example 3Olusegun Obasanjo (Q202006)13955
Example 4Gloria Steinem (Q231178)14014
Example 5Ernesto Zedillo (Q298149)14051
Planned useadding to existing items and items created
Number of IDs in source315
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1
See alsoproposals for ICPSR Organization Names Authority List ID, ICPSR Subject Thesaurus, and ICPSR Geographic Names Thesaurus ID
Applicable "stated in"-valueICPSR Personal Names Authority List (Q110305257)


The ICPSR Personal Names Authority List (Q110305257) provides controlled name forms and spellings for persons indexed in the ICPSR controlled vocabulary system. Entries include birth and death information and short biographical scope notes. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


  Support --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hessian Literature Council author IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier of an author on the Hessian Literature Council website
RepresentsHessian Literature Council (Q110484090)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem; human (Q5)
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Matthias Altenburg (Q102418)292
Example 2Ilona Einwohlt (Q1659022)226
Example 3Eva Strautmann (Q1230142)1252
Example 4Belinda Vogt (Q95202108)136
Planned useadding to items edited or created
Number of IDs in source360
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL$1/
Applicable "stated in"-valueHessian Literature Council (Q110484090)


The Hessian Literature Council (Q110484110)'s website includes hundreds of profiles of Hessian authors, with biographical information, photos, lists of works, contact information, and links to author websites. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


Podchaser creator numeric IDEdit

   Ready Create
DescriptionPodchaser creator ID used by their API
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Sam Harris (Q296047)22
Example 2Britanni Johnson (Q28758697)22222
Example 3MISSING
See alsoPodchaser creator ID (P9743)


Podchaser API Id is used to access the API. Nepalicoi (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


Réseau documents d'artistes IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionalphabetical identifier for an artist in the Réseau documents d'artistes database
RepresentsRéseau documents d'artistes (Q110552528)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), art group (Q4502119)
Allowed values[a-z]+(-[a-z]+)*
Example 1Jean Dupuy (Q3171880)jean-dupuy
Example 2Anne Valerie Gasc (Q99457789)anne-valerie-gasc
Example 3Kid Kreol & Boogie (Q110552539)kid-kreol-boogie
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useTemplate:Arts links (Q45312151)
Number of IDs in source500
Formatter URL$1
Distinct-values constraintyes


This new Wikidata property for authority control for artists (Q55653847) would help us improve our coverage of French art (Q10498581). Thierry Caro (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Vincent Steenberg
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Musedata102 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Infopetal (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
S.ann.adams (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Karinanw (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020‎ (UTC)
Ahc84 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Bitofdust (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Mathieu Kappler
Zblace (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts. VIGNERON
Benoît Prieur
Ash Crow
Thierry Caro
Nomen ad hoc
Marianne Casamance
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Mathieu Kappler
Archives nationales DJI
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Thierry Caro (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

religious communityEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionreligious community that this person attend or belong to
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Denis Malvy (Q28152059)Monastery of the Theotokos and St. Martin (Q5033561)
Example 2Gabriel Matzneff (Q3093872)Q3365699
Example 3Jérôme Rousse-Lacordaire (Q3191045)Couvent de l'Annonciation de Paris (Q64843702)
See also
  • religion (P140): religion of a person, organization or religious building, or associated with this subject
  • religious order (P611): order of monks or nuns to which an individual or religious house belongs
  • member of (P463): organization, club or musical group to which the subject belongs. Do not use for membership in ethnic or social groups, nor for holding a political position, such as a member of parliament (use P39 for that).

Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Nomen ad hoc Tris T7 TT me Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson ballo Na'im Mathieu Kappler Sawyer-mcdonell  Notified participants of WikiProject Religions. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC).


  •   Strong support for some reason, I thought that it already existed! --Epìdosis 16:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I’m not convinced member of (P463)   is not enough. It’s also not really clear if it does not apply to buildings owned by a religious community. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Epìdosis: as a specialist of religion-related properties, any answer perhaps? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC).
    My impression, given the examples above, is that member of (P463) could not have a building as value, while the examples for these property are typically buildings; I would probably rephrase the label of this property in "place of religious residence" or something similar (there is an overlapping also with residence (P551), I think). And we need more opinions from other users. --Epìdosis 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Epìdosis: hm, not really. A parish is not a place but an organization (but it is located in a church, which is a building). Convents and monasteries (and likes) are both, but what is interesting there is the affiliation, not the residence, IMHO. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC).
    Right. Maybe then member of (P463) could suffice; @Nomen ad hoc: do you think an apposite property would have advantages in comparison with using existent P463? --Epìdosis 08:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Should be allowed in coherence with religious order (P611). If created, religious order (P611) should become a subproperty of it, given that religious order (Q2061186) is subclass of religious community (Q2742167). Here are statements that use member of (P463) now : [9] Louperivois (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Louperivois: not hugely convinced. Generally it is more the community to depend of an order than the contrary, isn't it? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

Personal nameEdit