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.

Creating the property

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

  On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2020/10.

PersonEdit

performed atEdit

   Under discussion

MotivationEdit

Numerous artists (actors, musicians, etc.), have performed in various venues. Yet, the only property we have to characterize this is Employer, which creates an issue since performing arts building (Q57660343) does not qualify (and rightly so) as an instance of employer (Q3053337). The performed at function would be a much better fit for that role. William C. Minor (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I think this can get pretty unwieldy, as modern artists tour around the globe and visit hundreds of venues. NMaia (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Those "hundreds" of venues won't be all in Wikidata. William C. Minor (talk)

nationality (cultural identity)Edit

MotivationEdit

This property would be a subproperty of ethnic group (Q41710) meant to indicate a person's nationality based on their shared cultural identity with a group of people from a particular nation. This property would allow us to describe a person's nationality independent of their legal status as an official citizen of a country as in country of citizenship (P27). It would also allow more clarity and specificity than just using ethnic group (Q41710), which is typically associated with race, language, and religion. Qono (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

person country of citizenship (P27) ethnic group (P172) Qono's proposal comment
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Q1001) British India (Q129286), Dominion of India (Q1775277) Gujarati people (Q1282294) Indians (Q862086)
Albrecht Dürer (Q5580) Duchy of Bavaria (Q47261) maybe Germans (Q42884)? Germans (Q42884)
Adolf Hitler (Q352) Austria-Hungary (Q28513) to Nazi Germany (Q7318) Austrians (Q237534), Germans (Q42884) Germans (Q42884)
Václav Havel (Q36233) Czechoslovakia (Q33946), Czech Republic (Q213) Czechs (Q170217) Czechs (Q170217)
Robert John Pryse (Q20890211) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) maybe Welsh people (Q188353)? Welsh people (Q188353)
Barack Obama (Q76) United States of America (Q30) African Americans (Q49085) etc. Americans (Q846570)
Sepé Tiaraju (Q949500) Brazil (Q155) maybe Los Bolivianos (Q46429)?
Solomiya Krushelnytska (Q267058) Austria-Hungary (Q28513), Soviet Union (Q15180) maybe Ukrainians (Q44806)?
Nikita Khrushchev (Q35314) Russian Empire (Q34266), Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208), Soviet Union (Q15180) Russians (Q49542), Ukrainians (Q44806)
  • Question: could adding a something like regarded as national... in ... (cfr. Adam Mickiewicz) be an option? Lotje (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per previous discussion. --Yair rand (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Yair rand: Per what part of the previous discussion? Could you be more specific about why you oppose this proposal? Qono (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Many sources (encyclopedias, ULAN, Wikipedia articles, etc.) list "nationality" of the people. For example Adam Mickiewicz (Q79822) is usually described as "Polish poet", or "nationality: Polish" see [1][2][3][4][5][6] despite of the fact that he was born in Lithuania Governorate (today's Belarus) in Polish-Lithuanian family, lived in Russian Empire and France and died in Constantinople. During his live-time there was no Polish state. Currently we can not store information about his nationality, which is listed in many sources without getting it mixed with country of citizenship (P27) or ethnic group (P172), which in his case are different. After Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality the consensus seem to be to store nationality in country of citizenship (P27) property which leads to a nonsense statement that Adam Mickiewicz (Q79822) country of citizenship (P27) is Poland (Q36), which did not exist at the time. I think mixing those two separate concepts under the same property made country of citizenship (P27) much less useful. It is time to fix this. --Jarekt (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's not accurate. There is not consensus for using P27 for anything other than contemporaneous countries.
    Citizenship is citizenship, ethnicity is ethnicity, nationality is an extraordinarily ambiguous concept filled with extreme controversy at every turn. --Yair rand (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ethnicity is just as potentially ambiguous and fraught as nationality, yet we still have a way to record that in ethnic group (P172). And at least there are clear, authoritative sources for nationality (like Union List of Artist Names (Q2494649)). The lack of understanding (in this discussion alone) on whether this sense of nationality should be recorded in country of citizenship (P27) or ethnic group (P172) seems to indicate that we have a problem that this new property might solve. Qono (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ethnicity is not nearly as fraught as nationality; see previous discussions.
    Nationalities which are synonymous with ethnicities should be recorded with ethnicity, and nationalities which are synonymous with citizenship should be recorded with citizenship, nationalities indicating just one's place of birth or residence should be recorded with place of birth or residence, nationalities which are synonymous with religion should be recorded with religion.
    Also, ULAN is probably not a source one would want to use for this, given that in ULAN ""nationality" is shorthand for nationality/ethnicity/culture/religion/sexual orientation", and includes values such as "Protestant", "Sufi", and "Buddhist", and freely mixes particular states and dynasties and ethnic nationalities. --Yair rand (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yair rand great many sources describe people in one sentence using their nationality and occupation: "Polish poet", "French queen", "Russian photographer", etc. It is often first sentence of Wikipedia article and label used on Wikidata. See examples of sources I found for Adam Mickiewicz (Q79822) above. We should capture it somehow in structured data and in great many cases stuffing it into citizenship or ethnicity properties as was the decision of Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality discussion, lead to a mess, like you see in case of Adam Mickiewicz (Q79822). --Jarekt (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: The problem is that reliable sources state nationality without specifying what it is based on. If several reliable sources say simply "Beethoven is German"—not "Beethoven was born in Germany", "Beethoven had a German citizenship", etc.—where in Wikidata should that be recorded? Qono (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think something along these lines may be useful but am worried about the term "nationality" which tends to have quite different connotations in Britain and the United States. For Brits, it is equivalent to what the Americans call citizenship while in the U.S. it is frequently understood as the country of origin of the individual or even his family. For example, it is not unusual for an American to say his nationality is Irish if his parents come from Ireland, even if he was born in the U.S. I think on a multilingual basis, nationality is liable to be widely misused and misunderstood. Perhaps something like "associated nationality" would be more widely understood and cause fewer problems.--Ipigott (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I am following an invitation from the article Nationality where we had a recent discussion about what the lead of nationality should focus on. We have arrived at nationality that it means in international law member of a state. With that we could clearer differentiate betwenn nationality as ethnicity and as national identity, as well as the legal distinction between nationality as member of a state VS citizenship (which are in some countries and on principle not the same). I do not quite understand the discussion here about "country of citizenship" if it is understood as nationality in the sense of international law/"member of a state", because that would be for me misleading since you dont need citizenship to be a national (as in international law), see the example of American Samoa. Also "nationality (cultural identity)" doesnt make sense to me because for nationality a cultural identity is a very specific type of nationality based on culture, as in Austria being a "culture nation" (which is not a legal concept in Austria, as much as nationality is not, nationality in general is only again in the sense of international law, but for that a german word akin "member of state" is used and not the german Nationalität).
That said if you try to introduce a way to seperate nationality as national identity, from as legal international term, as well from ethnicity, be my guest, but it would need very good clarification. The easiest in my opinion is to have maybe seperate items such as "Nationality (international law)", "Nationality (national identity)" and "Nationality (ethnicity)", but the latter being very similar to and could be just dealt by ethnicity.
But the differentiation at the current article Nationality is still very under work (even if less under discussion), so I dont know if there should be more differentiation at the article before any seperating out can be attempted. But on the other hand it might help facilitate that, but at the same time it might be another pitfall in the long history of "nationality".
As far as I understand the discussion here it is all about the possibility to clearly categorize (mostly historic) persons. As an Austrian, Hitler is an obvious example for me: he is above listed as "country of citizenship" to be Austrian-Hungarian and Third Reich (I dont know how long/if he was national/citizen -the same in Austrian law- of the Republic of Austria as well), my critique here again is this item should be called in that sense "state membership". "Ethnic group" is somewhat clear, but the third category tries in my opinion to seperate out "ethnic group" between ethnicity and national identity or in german "volk". So Volk is this much discussed german term. In German law Volk is a legal term for individuals in the sense of membership to a Volk (Volkszugehörigkeit). In other words Volk is a term of national identity, its a way to identify people who are members of different states, but share national identity, as with Germans in western Poland. But for example people from german Switzerland do not share a national identity with Germans, even if the ethnicity is German. The same goes for Hitler (even if he wanted to change the following), he was an ethnic German (as most Austrians are), but he was member of the Austrian Volk in the sense of national identity (this he wanted to change with creating only one racial/ethnic nationalist german nation and national identity). That said Austrian national identity (Volk) is mostly a product from post WWI and WWII, because before that it was not a nation state but a part of a multi-national monarchy defining it self as a splinter german state/nation (Deutsch-Österreich) within the federated austrian-hungarian monarchy. So national identity has very much to do with the claim of a nation state, opposed to ethnicity. Long text short for your purposes I would keep "Ethnic group" (enter here for Hitler: German) and have one that is "National Identity" (enter here for Hitler: Austrian/German).
Well I hope I could give some more texture to the issue. PS: if you talk abou Beethoven, Mozart is another example of heatedly discussed person and his nationality (in short: state membership = Salzburg/=/Holy Roman Empire; ethnicity = German; national identity = German (and retrospective Austrian, since he is part of Austrians development as a regional body (today state), but thats the difficult part and cause for discussion, because its retrospective).
I have to add that I am new on Wikidata and do not really know the difference between items here and articles on Wikipedia.Nsae Comp (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per previous discussion. Also some of the issues raised above are not nearly as clear-cut as the table wants to indicate. Obama may identify as "African American" - but he's of mixed ancestry. There are many people who are of mixed ancestry and either wants to celebrate that mix, or want to deny a portion of it. How does this property help that? Or does it create more confusion and obfuscation? - Kosboot (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Kosboot, "African American" would be reported as his 'race' or 'ethnicity' or 'ancestry', but not his 'national identity'. (It can't be, because there is no "Africa America" in our list of nations.) I think it's safe to say that the national identity of every US president was "American". w:en:Josephine Baker was born an African American, but her national identity was French later in life. National identity is about your internal "emotional" identification with a country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Kosboot: This proposed property is not meant to refer to one's ancestry, but rather the national cultural context that a person was primarily influenced by. Qono (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Qono: So the way to test the validity of the proposed property is to find individuals for whom this property would be ambiguous. I think someone mentioned Beethoven who was born in Germany but spent most of his life in Vienna. Or Gertrude Stein who spent the majority of her life in Paris. Or Josephine Baker who even became a naturalized French citizen yet still participated in activist activities in the U.S. And think of the host of people who were forced out of their countries and lived somewhere else, perhaps naturalizing, but still engaged with their original country. - Kosboot (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Kosboot: I think that the answer in all of these cases is to simply record the nationality as stated by reliable sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica says Beethoven is German, as does ULAN, RKD, and Grove Music Online. If another reliable source said he was Austrian, so be it: that should be recorded as well. I think this is where the arguments against don't make sense to me. It's not up to me or any editor to decide what nationality a person is, but just to record what reliable sources state about a person's nationality. As it right now, this is hard to do on Wikidata. Qono (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @Qono: I think that's exactly what NOT to do - particularly recognizing all the criticisms that have been leveled at Wikipedia that it perpetuates racism or even less controversial issues by merely repeating them. No, no, no. What should be instead are identifiers for places that the person (or organization) lived, and identifiers for where the person had citizenship if that is known. Thus I strongly and vehemently oppose. - Kosboot (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
            • @Kosboot: Much respect for being on the lookout for systemic bias. This is beyond the scope of this proposal, but I would address the issue at the source level as Wikipedia does, not the property level. That is, if a source is deemed biased by the community, it shouldn't be used or it should be flagged somehow. Banning any property that merely has the potential to be described by biased sources is too broad a restriction, I think. Qono (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I   Support having a property for this idea, but I think it should be called national identity. As an example, how do you accurately describe a person who was illegally immigrated into the United States from northern Mexico as a young child? The parents are Mexican (Mexican citizenship, Mexican legal nationality, Mexican mestizo ethnicity). The child has Mexican citizenship, Mexican legal nationality, and was raised to believe that s/he had been born in America and encouraged to self-identify as belonging to the US. This is not an unusual situation, and I don't think that the current set of properties allow us to correctly record this situation. In another example, there are many EU citizens who change their legal citizenship and legal nationality without changing their internal sense of identity. Those should be recorded as "citizenship: Romania (1970–2010), Germany (2010–present), ethnicity: Roma; national identity: Romanian" whenever there are sources to support each of those items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I support both distinguishing "country of long-term residence and notability" from "country of legal citizenship" and using the former category for all instances where we are assuming a nationality based on residence but with no sourcing for birth citizenship or naturalization. I think far too many of the Wikidata claims of citizenship are under-sourced and that this would provide a way out of that. I do not support using a property like this for, say, people who have lived in the US their entire lives but have an Italian grandmother and think that because of that they should be counted as Italian. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @David Eppstein: I wouldn't support that use of the property either. This isn't about whether or not somebody "feels" Italian, in your example, but whether or not reliable sources consider them Italian based on their life circumstances, which is usually another way of saying "country of long-term residence and notability". Qono (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, or weak support if this new thing would be called as national identity, since nationality - especially in the modern times - is identical with citizenship, as well legally. Btw. on the table above, there are more mistakes, Austro-Hungarian citizenship never existed, the subject was Austrian or Hungarian, exlusively. Hitler has been an Austrian citizen before gathering German citizenship, so his parameter has to be changed to Cisleithania similarly like the case of Solomiya Krushelnytska, who was also an Austrian citizen. Moreover Hitler is erroneously put on the Austrian ethnic group, since such ethnicity did not exist then, Austrian national conscience has been built and only came to existence after 1945, so this has to be removed.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC))
    • @KIENGIR: Are you saying that the parenthetical qualifier of (cultural identity) is not enough to differentiate from plain 'ole nationality? Qono (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, not necessarily, given the high number of non-average cases.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC))
  •   Weak oppose Nationality is a very propagandistic concept. After new states are formed people go and rewrite history so that hundreds of thousands of dead people suddenly have a different nationality. The prospect of edit-wars about whether thousands of Catalan individuals should have nationality:catalan have the potential for a lot of drama on Wikidata. This discussion completely ignores those concerns and how they would be resolved. ChristianKl❫ 13:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: I believe these concerns would be resolved by requiring instances of the statement be supported by reliable sources. Qono (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Qono: Currently, in this proposal there is no effort made to talk about what a source would have to say to be a source. If "John Smith was an American diplomat" counts you might think that "John Smith was a Texan diplomat" would count as well if someone starts to argue for Texan independence and Texas being a nation. ChristianKl❫ 17:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I assume that the sources would be equivalent to other forms of non-obvious personal self-identification, such as sexual orientation or religion. I expect that we would accept something like a news article that says “I feel American in every single way,” [Leezia Dhalla said.] and reject, say, blogs making claims about another person's beliefs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @WhatamIdoing: So if someone says "I feel Texan in every single way" they are of Texan nationality? "I feel Berliner in every single way" would mean that Berlin is my nationality? ChristianKl❫ 11:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. This seems like the property-version of that most annoying of questions some people have to endure: “Yes, but where are you really from?” This discussion offers plenty of evidence against this idea, such as various attempts to define some platonic "Germanness" in Hitler, of all people, with a suprising lack of explicit awareness of why that is a particularly bad idea. Then, we already see the first instances of this being used to declare some to be second-rate citizens because they "change [...] citizenship [..] without changing their internal sense of identity", which is a political talking point popular with those obsessed with drawing neat lines between themselves and others, but liable to fall back to crude stereotypes such as an equivalence between Romania (country) and Roma (people). Let's stop this before we get to measuring skulls and the recessive inheritance of Canadianess. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Matthias Winkelmann: I don't understand how this would be used to declare some to be "second-rate citizens". If there are reliable sources that state a person's nationality based on their life and the cultures in which they lived (and not purely their country of citizenship), how is it problematic to record the assertion of those sources? My understanding is that property declarations aren't Wikidata saying "X is true about this person", just that "This source says that X is true about this person". What is the issue there? Qono (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Matthias Winkelmann, as the person who gave the example of the Roma people, I want to say that I chose it specifically because being ethnically Roma is not equivalent to being Romanian. I had assumed that would be obvious to every educated person, so I thought it was unnecessary to tell people what they (and you) already knew. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose Seriously, women were not legally allowed to be citizens throughout most of history. Married women in particular, which most women were, were defined as a single legal entity with their spouse. So if you were born in x country and you married someone from y country, you automatically were no longer xian, but now yian, regardless of whether you could speak that language, practiced any of those customs, or identified as yian, or whether you lived in y country (ever). This isn't ancient past, women in the US lost their citizenship upon marriage until 1922. If they lost it prior to that time, getting it back required an oath of allegiance or court order. Women in Ireland did not have citizenship in their own right until 1935, Canada 1945, Britain 1948, El Salvador and Norway 1950. The Convention on the Nationality of Married Women was not passed by the UN and its signatories until 1957. Women's history is already obscured by lack of academic study and preservation of sources, but we certainly don't need to add to the problem of uncovering women's histories by labeling them with nationality. And, further, how would one go about doing that? It isn't as if it was published or widely available data that Jane Doe married and lost her citizenship. Most sources simply settle for indicating where she was born, regardless of her legal status. SusunW (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. This would make sense where ethnic group is highly formalised, for example in African political biographies. However, I can forsee the most obvious uses being in ethnonationalist "claims" to particular historical figures with dubious sourcing. There's also the vagueness problem: is Adolf Hitler to be listed as German or Austrian? And does it matter to the average reader? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support, it makes sense in Czech language and history - 120 years ago there were many people which were all citizens of Austria-Hungaria, but some of them were Germans, some Czechs, some identified as Moravian. But word ethnicity is not good for this, ethnicity sounds like something which can be distinguished on (first) look - gypsiesromani, jews, black, arabic, southern-european... JAn Dudík (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @JAn Dudík: Using racist slang like gypsies while arguing we need more nationalism on Wikidata, doesn't really motivate me to be in favor of nationalism. Can you explain what makes a Austrian-Hungarian to be of German or Czech nationality and define the concept better? Why aren't Romani their own nationality? They have their own language. ChristianKl❫ 11:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @ChristianK:, It was not meant in racist way - I used the word i know. They have own language, but not all of them knows and uses it.
      • Austria-Hungary was big, I speak only about Czech part - some of them identified like Czechs (even if they speak german) and some like Germans "({Q|Q16102016}}" - according language. They all together were Austrian. But there was big natinal movement in late 19th and early 20th century and Czechs wanted to identify like Czechs - but this was not ethnicity, and not only by language.
      • Karel Klostermann (Q84648) identified himself as Czech even if some (minority) of his works were written in german and was german origin ("ethnicity").
      • eg. Jan Neruda (Q156321) was Czech writer, citizen of Bohemia, part of A-HG.
      • Sigmund Freud (Q9215) was by ethnicity Jew, by nationality is sometimes written as Austrian.
      • Franz Kafka (Q905) was by ethnicity Jew. By language German, byl nationality maybe german, maybe czech (according to source).
      • JAn Dudík (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
        • A key question to be answered is what makes a minority that has it's own language a nationality. Whether Romani, Basque, Catalan or Uyghurs what decides whether they are nationalities? It seems to me like there a lot of motivation for rewriting the status of thousands of dead people for political ends to argue for groups like that being recognized as nationalities.
As far as Franz Kafka (Q905), EnWiki avoids saying anything about his nationality. DeWiki seems to see him as German. He seems to me like exactly the kind of person where things get complicated. For him in particular you likely have enough sources to still have good statements but there are plenty of people with a lot less sourcing. ChristianKl❫ 15:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • « 120 years ago there were many people which were all citizens of Austria-Hungaria, but some of them were Germans, some Czechs, some identified as Moravian. But word ethnicity is not good for this » →‎ Why? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Because I don't think anyone has given yet a convincing explanation of the difference between "nationality" and "ethnic group". I think the best is to add the aliases "nationality", "national identity", "ethnicity" to "ethnic group". --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

historic firstEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionachievement or position held by subject as first of their social group
Representshistoric first (Q64510815)
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed valuesvalue and all qualifier combined (except point in time/sourcing circumstances) should determine the historic first
Example 1Wentworth Cheswell (Q7983013)elected person (Q16060143)
qualified with ethnic group (P172)=African Americans (Q49085), country (P17)=United States of America (Q30)
Example 2Susanna M. Salter (Q3631124)mayor (Q30185)
qualified with sex or gender (P21)=female (Q6581072), country (P17)=United States of America (Q30)
Example 3Karolina Widerström (Q4110625)physician (Q39631)
qualified with sex or gender (P21)=female (Q6581072), country of citizenship (P27)=Sweden (Q34)

MotivationEdit

The idea is provide a way to model a historic first (Q64510815), especially firsts for historically underrepresented social groups. The property statement is placed on a human's item, the value is their achievement or position, and qualifiers are used to specify the social circumstances under which they count as a "first". Note that while the first female prime minister of a country would of course be queryable by other means, as all prime ministers are notable on Wikidata, the same is not at all true for physicians and similar.Pharos (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Oppose I approve of the basic idea wholeheartedly, but I don't see anything near an actually functional implementation in the proposal. this sort of complex description is just not really possible in the Wikidata model IMO. It's likely that creating items with instance of (P31) historic first (Q64510815) (e.g. something titled "first election of an African-American to public office in the United States"), and linking those to the people through significant event (P793) is a more efficient approach. Circeus (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    I don't believe creating many new items like "first election of an African-American to public office in the United States" would be at all scalable. Consider how many items we'd have to create just for "first licensed female physician in X place", for example, and the myriad other professions and positions. Not to mention that the second and third female physicians are often notable too, and this can also be expressed with qualifiers.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Circeus, Pharos: I reformatted the samples a bit. Maybe it's a bit clearer now. I think they should be feasible. Supposedly, it could work also without any qualifier? Eve > historic first > female. --- Jura 13:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it could work without a qualifier. Just wanted to explain the harder and more common case first.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this approach better then the significant event (P793) one. ChristianKl❫ 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment maybe we should mention in the description that qualifiers (except "point in time" and sourcing circumstances) need to be read as cumulative conditions. --- Jura 15:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment in the first sample, elected person (Q16060143) might be better than elective office (Q17279032), and country (P17) or applies to jurisdiction (P1001) than country of citizenship (P27). Supposedly an American could have be elected to an office in another country. --- Jura 15:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed, these seem like reasonable changes to me.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Circeus. --Tinker Bell 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pharos: are you still interested in this? If so, could you attempt to address the comments. --- Jura 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support @Pharos: I updated the proposal per discussion. --- Jura 14:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I like the idea of being able to record this, and I think the revised proposal is pretty good, but I would still prefer using significant event (P793) and appropriate qualifiers. However, I don't think we would need to create a lot of single-use items as per Circeus's suggestion- we could combine the two approaches and use eg/ significant event (P793):first person, and qualifiers as above (ethnic group, gender, country) plus has quality (P1552):elected person (Q16060143) (or is there a better qualifier?).
The other reason for using significant event (P793) is that "historic first" is important, but so is "historic last" (albeit it's rarer). For example, Alessandro Moreschi (Q504969) is famous for being the last castrato musician, Teruo Nakamura (Q700512) was the last Japanese soldier to surrender (in 1974!), and there are quite a few items linked from w:Category:Last living survivors. There are also occasional cases where "only person" is notable, and it might not be appropriate to use "first" (since it's something not expected to happen again). I am sure there are other things we might want to treat as historic records in the same way. It also seems to be more appropriate to express things like "second person to do X" using significant event (P793) than by recording it under a property called "first".
Creating multiple different properties for last/only/etc is certainly possible, but it seems more straightforward to use significant event (P793) and then use an item to say first/last/only, with qualifiers to give the context as proposed above. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. I think we should try to find a solution for "historic last" as well. @Pharos: what do you think?
    Creating new, likely unique, items for each in P793 doesn't seem practical, especially as then each item would need to include statements to provide the information in a structured way.
    A disadvantage of including a few general values in P793 could be that a separate way to read the qualifiers of such values is likely needed (and these may need to be excluded when trying to retrieve the others). --- Jura 07:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Andrew_Gray: you make good points. Would you please show the modeling of what you propose to illustrate your points? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Shouldn't we be able to discern historic firsts from the existing data? For example, doing a query for all African American mayors sorted by date? Adding these historic first properties seems like redundant work, plus, from my experience, claims of being "firsts" have a low rate of accuracy. I imagine this would lead to unnecessary edit wars in some cases. Kaldari (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • We can't do this as we don't know whether or not we have all African American mayors in our database. ChristianKl❫ 18:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • We will not have every mayor in a given country our database, and even more so we will not have every lawyer or physician. It is often the case that someone has a Wikipedia article in large part because they have been attributed a historic "first", and it's important this be reflected in Wikidata. Of course statements can and should have qualifiers, depending on their provenance and reliability.--Pharos (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Expressible with has quality (P1552) = earliest recorded instance (Q63971158) with qualifier of (P642) or subject has role (P2868), and further qualifiers to narrow the criteria – see e.g. Conrad Heyer (Q20859406) or Orville Wright (Q494455). The proposed property may be a bit cleaner though, as a matter of taste. Per Circeus and Andrew Gray, I hope we can reach a consensus for how to express this kind of information, whether the proposed property is it or not. Swpb (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be good to brainstorm on this once more .. --- Jura 09:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

sexEdit

   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)

MotivationEdit

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)

DiscussionEdit

  • 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.46.188.23.100 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: http://www.slowanaczasie.uw.edu.pl/slowo-roku-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)

status of mortal remainsEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionstatus of the mortal remains of a assumed dead person
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5); fictional character (Q95074); organism (Q7239); person (Q215627); legendary figure (Q13002315)
Allowed valuesdisappeared (Q83978538); dead (Q83978562) or others, if they appear.
Example 1Almir Custódio de Lima (Q63069565)disappeared (Q83978538) with ref
Example 2Daniel José de Carvalho (Q17413814)disappeared (Q83978538) with ref
Example 3Maria Lúcia Petit (Q10326010) → deprecated: disappeared (Q83978538); normal rank: dead (Q83978562) all with ref
Planned useAll the 430 disappeared and dead people from the Brazilian dictatorship.

MotivationEdit

This property is important because it points out the situation of the remains of a dead individual (or assumed to be dead individual). Several databases that I have worked on have this information expressed in one way or another, as seen in the examples. Some cases where this is useful are:

  • Individual A has their remains kidnapped from their grave;
  • Individual B fighting against a dictatorship was killed by the Government, that fails to return their mortal remains to the family.

Ederporto (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Status of mortal remains" = "dead" doesn't seem to make sense. Also: how this correlates with cases were individual was buried in X, then relocated to Y, and eventually finally to a mausoleum in Z? And with cases where mortal remains are distributed by a series of places? And presumed to be (also?) in place W?--DarwIn (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Arbnos (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with the complaint about "dead" not making sense for human remains. I mean all human remains are dead (is this a translation issue?)... What other values other than disappeared are we anticipating here?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrokenSegue (talk • contribs) at 16:44, 15 March 2020‎ (UTC).
  • Could we use place of burial (P119)disappeared (Q83978538)? Maybe P119 should get revision, because it is currently called "burial", when instead it could be "location of mortal remains". Burial and cremation often end with mortal remains going to some location. If we talked about location of mortal remains, we could also include more abstract concepts, like (person in sunken)→(location of mortal remains)→(some ocean). I agree that we should have a place to note where bodies go, but I am unsure if we need a new property when perhaps our current one would work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


number of home casesEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumber of home cases during a pandemic with self- or mandated quarantine
Data typeQuantity
DomainWikidata:Property proposal/number of home cases
Allowed valuesNon-negative integers (^\d)
Example 12020 COVID-19 pandemic in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (Q87143769) → 3582 (at 2020-03-26)
Example 22020 COVID-19 pandemic in Hauts-de-France (Q87144163) → 1854 (at 2020-03-26)
Example 3MISSING
Robot and gadget jobsnumber of cases (P1603), number of deaths (P1120), number of recoveries (P8010),Wikidata:Property proposal/number of clinical tests

MotivationEdit

France (SpF) will no longer give, from 26 March 2020, the P1603 number of "total cases" (hospitalised + home) by region every day, but probably only once a week.

while waiting France (SpF) only give every day the number of "hospitalized cases" (number of people hospitalized in hospital).

what do I use as a property in "number of cases" P1603 to attach them?

quantity (P1114) with criteria used (P1013) ?

Or do I have to apply for two new properties :

-number of hospitalized cases -number of home cases--Viruscorona2020 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support--So9q (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment wouldn't the number of home cases the result of number of cases (P1603) minus a propably created property of the number of hospitalized cases? --Mfchris84 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment (but I guess I slightly   Oppose). It is a good idea, but I also believe that number of cases (P1603) + a qualifier suffices. Perhaps just the qualifier of (P642) pointing to the item home care (Q1642542) or similar would be enough to capture such information. TiagoLubiana (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Mfchris84 and @TiagoLubiana please go to show Q83873593#P1603 thanks--Viruscorona2020 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm not really convinced that starting to use restrictive qualifier (Q61719275) on number of cases (P1603) is a good idea, given the weay the other properties for this have been defined. Using number of cases (P1603) is likely to end up giving users incorrectly contextualized data. --- Jura 06:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: I agree that number of cases (P1603) might get confused and end up being misused. But still on the subject, does this property pass the status for notability? I do not know of sources reporting "home cases". Actually, even official case numbers are not accurate, so perhaps there should be a space for case estimates? number of cases (P1603) nowadays serves both "extimated" and "confirmed" definitions. All these specifics that might be of interest in some cases, but not in others, could be specified in qualifiers. Otherwise we could have a lot of different properties, and I am not sure which one is best. I personally think that the qualifier-based might be more flexible. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @Jura (je traduirai en anglais dès que j'aurais du temps) : oui, si j'ai demandé le "home cases", c'est parce que les sources données par SpF gvt parlent de "retour à domicile" et "retour à la maison" que j'ai traduit en "home cases" peut-être improprement, mais on peut changer en "back to home cases" ou autre. Mais bon, au jour d'aujourd'hui leurs données sont placés dans la propriété "nombre de guérisons" car Jérôme Salomon et Olivier Verlant décrivent le plus souvent les chiffres de rad avec le terme de guérison, alors que certains patients sont rentrés chez eux finir de guérir. --Viruscorona2020 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nepalicoi (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Chchowmein (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Dhx1 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Konrad Foerstner (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) -Netha Hussain (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Neo-Jay (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC) KlaudiuMihaila (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Salgo60 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andrawaag (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Whidou (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC) TJMSmith (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Nehaoua(talk) 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Peter Murray-Rust (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kasyap (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Denny (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kwj2772 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Skim (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC) SCIdude () 15:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC) T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Mlemusrojas (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Yupik (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Csisc (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) OAnick (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 12:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Jjkoehorst (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) So9q (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Nandana (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) ·addshore· talk to me! 15:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Librarian lena (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Jelabra (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) AlexanderPico (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Higa4 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC) JoranL (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Alejgh (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Ranjithsiji (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) AntoineLogean (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Farmbrough21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC).
Ecritures (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Sj 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) EricaAzzellini (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Julián L. Páez (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC) LaMèreVeille (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Meenakshi nandhini (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 813gan (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Tania --Taniamaio (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Alessandra Boccone (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Talinum (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC) B bradley26 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Battleofalma (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 99of9 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject COVID-19 @Viruscorona2020:

  • Given the lack of support, I'd close this as not done. BTW "number of quarantined cases" separately might be interesting.--- Jura 15:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Antidote2020: --- Jura 15:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

KunyaEdit

   Under discussion
RepresentsKunya (Q1285470)
Data typeMonolingual text
Example 1Abu Bakr (Q334923) → أبو بكر (Arabic)
Example 2Umar ibn Al-Khattāb (Q8467) → أبو حفص (Arabic)
Example 3Uthman ibn Affan (Q37731) → أبو عبد الله (Arabic)
See alsonickname (P1449) and name in native language (P1559)

MotivationEdit

(I am submitting this request on behalf of @Abu aamir: who requested my help to create this request. I am neutral as whether this property should be created or not.)

Hello I propose adding Kunya, within the entries of wikidata, provided that it needs to be cited, in Arabic, people are known and called by one or two or 3 of the three names types, namely, the personal name, the Kunya, and the title,for instance the first Muslim Caliph was know by his Kunya Abu Bakr, there are so many Muslims, arabs and non-arabs who are best know by their Kunyas, adding this entry is essential to understand and distinguish between proper names by which Arabs are called, moreover, most of contemporary Eastern ِArabs are called by their Kunya including not limited to politicians and notable people, and almost all Arabs of pre-colonial periods were called by their Kunyas, the Kunya has its own article in Arabic and English --Abu aamir (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes from me (Meno25):

DiscussionEdit

@Meno25: Existing naming properties like family name (P734), given name (P735) and second family name in Spanish name (P1950) use the item type and not monolingual text. Do you see a reason why the monolingual text data-type would be better for this property? ChristianKl❫ 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Not at all. I was hesitant when creating this request about the data type to use: monolingual text or item. The reason I used the former was just to save time. (If we used the "item" data type, then we need to create potentially hundreds of new items for different Arabic kunyas, as we don't have any currently on Wikidata, before we are able to add the kunyas to currently existing items about people. Also, please note that I am not an information scientist, who would be able to answer this question about how to store the information better than me.) --Meno25 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Hello, I am ready to respond to any further inquiry within my knowledge.--Abu aamir (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

context of deathEdit

MotivationEdit

Prior discussion: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#How_should_we_note_that_George_Floyd_(Q95677819)_was_killed_by_police?

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 https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings 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)


DiscussionEdit

  •   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 http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontology/cwrc.html#DeathContext . 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)
  •   Comment I like the line of thinking. I do feel that it would be good to restrict the allowed values somehow, but can't figure out the common link between discrete events like battles/disasters and more general things like US police violence (but agree that they both fit in). --SilentSpike (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose in the current state. I don't think it's well defined. Example 4-6 are ok, and could be called "died in battle/event". Anne Frank could also have the values history of the Jews during World War II (Q2043277), or Final Solution (Q127013), George Floyd could also have colorism (Q5282081). Which one is it? Nepalicoi (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nepalicoi: Just to point out, as per the allowed values constraint, Anne Frank could not have a value of history of the Jews during World War II (Q2043277). You otherwise make raise a valid point, though I don't see why the property couldn't have multiple valid values? --SilentSpike (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    •   Neutral Double posting, but I think the problematic cases are really the ones where the value is just a subclass (US police violence/discrimination against black crime victims). I suppose strictly those would not be the context of a death, but more of a category a death might fall into (for all other examples you can say "X died in Y", but not those ones). However, I see the original proposal intention in that it would be good to be able to easily link deaths to such topics. Not sure how to do so though. --SilentSpike (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would   Support this property as "died in event", what do you think? let's keep this discussion going, I think there is a need for this kind of property. Germartin1 (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good job! I was also trying to figure out how best to be able to aggregate deaths based on a particular event or situation. This seems like the best way so far. We just have to standardize, and have a larger selection of examples. --RAN (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

parentEdit

MotivationEdit

I propose this property as a superproperty (superclass) for father (P22) and mother (P25). It can be linked with subproperty of (P1647) to those two other properties. I explicitly do not propose the removal or transfer of any values currently stored in the properties father (P22) and mother (P25).

  1. This property will make it easier to write queries for requesting information about all parents of certain people together, because you can filter for any subproperty of this property.
  2. It can be linked to external properties, such as schema.org/parent.
  3. And in the exceptional and rare case, when the gender of a real or fictional being is unknown or neither male nor female, the parental relationship could be added using this property, and be queried together with all other parents.

Of course I can't add examples for my first and second reasons for this property, but that does not matter, the main point of this property is making queries easier. (But nevertheless, I did find an example for my third reason. Feel free to add more examples.) Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support That seems reasonable, as it would align this property with most others, most prominently child (P40) and spouse (P26). It's also repetitive, as gender is recorded in its own statement. And now I'm wondering why so much effort is spent on categorising given names into male and female? But somehow I sense the vague notion that the best course of action here is to quickly think about somethings else and not mention it again --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Matthias Winkelmann: I think the main reason for it is that many languages (not English) have grammatical structures that differ depending on the gender of the subject of a phrase. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don’t see how this will make querying easier, at least not with regards to the “subproperty” relationship. SPARQL has no syntax to use this as far as I’m aware, and some things even become completely impossible when you introduce that kind of indirection; for instance, while it’s possible to query for “X is descendant of Y” using something like X (wdt:P22|wdt:P25)+ Y, this is not possible if you want to get the property in question via a subproperty of (P1647) relation, because SPARQL property paths can only contain IRIs, not variables (i. e., (wdt:P22|wdt:P25)+ is legal, (?wdt)+ is not). --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment as TweetsFactsAndQueries, it's unclear what the use would be. Can we see some sample queries? We already have Q7566#P4316 so I doubt this would add anything. There are many other relationships with kinship equivalent in SPARQL at Wikidata (P4316) that lack a specific property. --- Jura 08:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

level of professionalnessEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionlevel of competition generally associated with this item
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5), organization (Q43229), event (Q1656682), award (Q618779)
Allowed valuesprofessional, amateur, collegiate, semi-professional, pro–am, youth
Example 12019 NFL season (Q60526042) → professional
Example 2Duke Blue Devils men's basketball (Q4171772) → collegiate
Example 3USL League Two (Q976491) → amateur
Example 4AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am (Q298589) → pro–am
Planned usefor classifying sports, competitions, awards, etc in a clear way
See alsocompetition class (P2094)

MotivationEdit

Right now, there doesn't seem to be a clear consistent way to classify whether a team/league/event/etc is pro, amateur, or whatever else. I deal with a lot of college sports items, and I've noticed that there's no consistent way to distinguish collegiate teams. Sometimes it gets set in the sport (P641) field (e.g. college basketball (Q48890) instead of or in addition to basketball (Q5372)), sometimes it gets set in instance of (P31) (e.g. college sports team (Q18558301), NCAA Division I women's basketball team (Q54190181)), sometimes you could follow the parent club (P831) property and find a university and college sports club (Q2367225) instance (not ideal since that's another item lookup), and sometimes there's no clear indication at all. This seems like a really basic fact that ought to be easy to determine for any sports-related item (in the same way that sport (P641) and competition class (P2094) are).

For the 6 allowed values I picked (pro/amateur/collegiate/semi-pro/pro-am/youth), my assumption is that we'd create new items for most/all of them. There are existing items that kind of work (professional (Q702269), amateur (Q455595), college sports (Q5146583), semi-professional sports (Q4371047), pro–am (Q7252932), youth sports (Q599867)). However, some of these are sports-specific, and I'd like to see this property also being used for awards/competitions/etc outside the realm of sports.

The 6 values I picked are definitely up for debate. I think this property should be limited to a fairly short list of allowed values so that it's not cumbersome to use (we have competition class (P2094) for expressing greater complexity), but exactly what's on that list may need to be tweaked. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support This sounds good to me. Some other values that would make sense are "middle school," "high school," "inter-mural collegiate." Maybe "pick-up" too, but I can't think of a case where that would be used. Regarding the label, "level of professionalness" is quite clunky, but I also don't have a better a better suggestion. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 05:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @The-erinaceous-one: In the interest of keeping the list of values for this property as short as possible, I'd lean towards not adding those values. Middle/high school would fit under "youth", and intramural collegiate fits under "amateur". My concept for this property is to be extremely general, in the same vein as manner of death (P1196). More precise classifications can be accomplished with competition class (P2094). –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose; this is exactly the same problem that we are solving with competition class (P2094) (eligibility criteria to enter an event as a participant), and I think we should use that property to cover this aspect as well. I would not require and re-definition of competition class (P2094); a few new value items are sufficient actually. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @MisterSynergy: We definitely could use competition class (P2094) for this, true. The reason I wanted a new property, however, is that competition class (P2094) is a somewhat complex property that allows a wide range of values, which makes it harder to do simple queries with. If you're trying to do a query for items related to collegiate sports in general (i.e. not any particular sport), for example, you'd have to either need to use a hardcoded list of all the college sports (e.g. college basketball (Q48890), college football (Q1109032), college sports (Q5146583)), or your query would have to retrieve the value item of the competition class (P2094) claim to check if it's a college sport, which is more complex and expensive. Having a separate property with a very limited set of values makes retrieval easier. –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Querying with competition class (P2094) is actually pretty efficient, as it is a transitive property. This means that you neither need a hardcoded list in the query, nor do you need to make complex restrictions regarding the values of P2094 to use it.
        Experience shows that the proposed property will probably not be used with "a very limited set of values" even if this is the initial intention; also that edit count hunters will likely pour it to a large amount of items even if it does not fit at all (happened with P2094 as well); and that data users will not know whether to use P2094 or this one or both. Having a second "competing" property for a very similar purpose like an existing one is usually a bad idea here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @MisterSynergy: Having manner of death (P1196) and cause of death (P509) seems to work okay. Much like P1196, I'm imagining this property having a one-of constraint limiting the possible values. If the constraint is widely ignored, we could have a bot enforce it by removing invalid entries. –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Removing "invalid entries" is an extremely tedious task and quite quickly you run into conflicts if you do so. I’d rather not rely on this option. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • On second thought: Perhaps "pro-am" should be eliminated, and pro-am events should instead be classed as both "professional" and "amateur". Otherwise we might end up seeing more and more values created to specify every possible combination of the existing values. And maybe "semi-pro" should go too – it's really just a subclass of "pro". –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, "youth" does not fit here either as it is already a facet of the P2094 values, leaving "professional" and "amateur". —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @MisterSynergy: The idea is that every item which has P2094 should also be able to be classified under this new property (much like how every item with "cause of death" can also have "manner of death"). P2094 is where the detailed descriptor can go (i.e. "U-16 association football" or "middle school golf" or whatever), whereas this new property contains the broad category ("youth"). The goal is to enable more general queries. If you want to filter a query to only professional sports, for example, you have to dig deep into every P2094 object to figure out whether or not that item is a professional class or not. This property would make such queries much more feasible. –IagoQnsi (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
        • This is clearly not a good idea. Actually, for most sport events the "level of professionalness" is no factor at all; athletes can compete regardless of their status. It appears to me that this sort of distinction is made in the US and a few other countries, but by far not everywhere in the world. It is certainly a bad idea to add it to anything that has already a P2094 if it is not a factor in most cases.
          Besides that, you can already now query for something like "only professional sports" easily. Since professionalness is not yet incorporated in P2094, I use under-23 sport (Q14510042) here to demonstrate it: a query as simple as SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P2094* wd:Q14510042 } lists you all items that have a competition class item with the Under-23 age class facet---obviously with no deep digging required. Once again, P2094 is a transitive property for exactly that reason, and adding the professionalness to it is really simple. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

funeralEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionmemorial services held for this item after death
Representsfuneral (Q201676)
Data typePoint in time
DomainQ5
Example 1Martin Luther King Jr. (Q8027)Funeral of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Q5509127)
Example 2Diana, Princess of Wales (Q9685)Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales (Q2918374)
Example 3Kobe Bryant (Q25369) → some value ( point in time (P585) 7 February 2020); some value ( point in time (P585) 24 February 2020 location (P276) Staples Center (Q186080))
Example 4Austen Fox Riggs (Q4822857) → some value ( point in time (P585) 7 March 1940, refine date (P4241) 13:00 (Q55811230), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) Stockbridge (Q222705))
Planned useRecording funeral dates from obituaries, etc

MotivationEdit

Currently there's no clear way to link from a person to their funeral, and there's no way at all to record their funeral date if it doesn't have its own item. This property would allow those funeral items to be linked. For the majority of people whose funeral does not have its own item, this property could be set to some value, and the date and place be specified using point in time (P585) and location (P276). Funeral dates and locations are very often included in obituaries and can be of some interest. IagoQnsi (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

IdentifierEdit

madhhabEdit

   Under discussion

MotivationEdit

This is my first time i suggest a property, maybe a Muslim user or any interested user can help me. Ruwaym (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment This property, if I understand where you're going with this, seems similar to movement (P135), although that property does not seem to be used with religious subgroups. Perhaps the scope of this property can be readjusted to allow for use with other religious schools of thought? Mahir256 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Please provide examples. Otherwise, why aren't the schools of thoughts values for religion (P140)? ChristianKl❫ 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I have added the examples as requested. Thoughts? --Trade (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I explained her. About "why aren't the schools of thoughts values for religion", If you mean we put "maddhab" on same property under religion, (like Q67180122), I guess It is not standard. For example a Muslim religion is "Islam", his maddhab can be "Hanafism", his movement can be "Islamic modernism". I ping @باسم: from Arabic Wikipedia, he knows better. --Ruwaym (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Madhhab should go under Religion naturally, particularly under Islam, like @Ruwaym: said. For Example: A Person's religion would be Islam, his sect would be Sunni, his madhab would be Hanafism.
movement (P135), in Islam, would be to discribe if he is a Salafi or Ash'ari, in other words is to show what theological school or movement he / she belongs toباسم (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@باسم: Most items uses religion (P140) to describe if someone is a salafi or sufi. Do you want this changed? To @Ruwaym:, do you want this property to be limited to persons? Or do you think it should be used on countries, organizations and madrassas as well? --Trade (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Trade you mentioned a good point, Maddhab is all about education ,Traditional at madrassahs, Modern days at universities. So, you changed my mind, This property also can be used for madrassahs, and other Islamic educational institutions. About countries can be used too, like Iran mentioned in it's constitution The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'farî school [in usul al-Dîn and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable. Your examples are good, however not famous ones. Also remember for this property, One is not enough, many scholars changed their maddhabs, or madrassahs for all madhhabs. --Ruwaym (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: It's not correct to describe Salafism or Sufism as a religion as in religion (P140). They are not even sects in Islam like Sunnism and Shi'ism, they are schools of thought, so they would fit better with movement (P135), or with their own seperate property. Bestباسم (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@باسم: I'm not saying they are religions, i'm just pointing out how people currently are using the property. We might start a discussion on the project chat about the scope of the 'Religion' property. @Ruwaym:, i have tried to update the proposal to include more famous scholars. --Trade (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
In the Christian context it's common to see subsets of Christianity like Mormonism (Q747802) as being religions. It seems to me like the relationship between Sunni Islam and Islam as a whole is comparable to that of Christianity and Mormonism (Q747802). Do you consider that to be a qualitatively different relationship? If so, what's the nature of the difference?
Enwiki seems to consider Ibadi (Q243551) to be a valid value for the religion of Said bin Sultan (Q506193). In the examples here that is suggested as the mathab of Sulayman al-Baruni (Q2440021) but not of that of Said bin Sultan (Q506193). What kinds of problems do you see with that modelling decision of enwiki? ChristianKl❫ 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl:I do not know why i added Ẓāhirī (Q140592) as a a valid value for the madhab of Said bin Sultan (Q506193). Since it seems to be wrong i've decided to replace him with someone better known. @باسم: and @Ruwaym: you might wanna view his comment. --Trade (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Differences between Madhhab in Islam and Christian denominations? Well, I can show this map and this article. @Trade:, I can help you for more famous scholar for each maddhab: Muhammad al-Shaybani (Q293612) for Hanafi, Al-Mawardi (Q335635) for Shafi'i, Abu Dawood (Q336558) for Hanbali, Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (Q2973730) for Ja'fari, Idris Imad al-Din (Q7660476) for Isma'ilism and Jābir ibn Zayd (Q6035355) for Ibadi .--Ruwaym (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that the "Sects in the Islamic World" article supports the claim that no correspondence exists here. It says "The principal difference between a madhhab and a denomination as the concept is normally understood (and as denominations exist in theWest) is that a madhhab is not really an organized body."
When we speak about Christian denominations in their role as subclasses of Christianity we are not focusing on them being organized bodies. ChristianKl❫ 13:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: Hey, how is this property feels?!--Ruwaym (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  Support I'll be okay with it as long as it can be a qualifier to religion (P140) --Trade (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  Support okay because it not similar to religion (P140)--NEHAOUA (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose The religion property solves the use-case well enough and should not be read to be very narrow. ChristianKl❫ 09:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Germartin1 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support, defering to muslim editor here The risk of ignorantly denying them something they consider useful seems to far outweigh the more generic risk of a marginal property. FWIW, my understanding of the concept is shallow, but I can sort-of see how one could feel this is different, conceptional, from Christian denominations. And I wouldn't want to shoehorn it into a scheme that doesn't quite fit, and to thereby establish the dominant religion's ontology as some sort of "neutral" standard all others have to relate to. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Matthias Winkelmann: There are costs of storing this information in a separate property. If we create proposals for subcategories of every religion individually smaller Wikis who do import religion (P140) and not more specialized properties lose the relevant information when it's not stored there. ChristianKl❫ 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
'If we create proposals for subcategories of every religion individually smaller Wikis who do import religion (P140) and not more specialized properties lose the relevant information when it's not stored there' A madhab is not a religion. The imported data would be blatantly wrong.--Trade (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

UEFA referee IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an association football referee at UEFA.com
Representsassociation football referee (Q859528)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainWikidata property for authority control for people (Q19595382), Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637), Wikidata property related to association football (Q23661205)
Allowed values[1-9]\d{0,8}
Example 1Alberto Undiano Mallenco (Q310662)277056
Example 2Daniele Orsato (Q602462)1905010
Example 3Cüneyt Çakır (Q321572)283117
Example 4Szymon Marciniak (Q7665089)250019292
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/coaches/coach=$1/profile/index.html
See alsoTransfermarkt referee ID (P3699), EU-Football.info referee ID (P7435), WorldReferee.com referee ID (P7436), WorldFootball.net referee ID (P6314), Soccerbase referee ID (P7465), PlaymakerStats.com referee ID (P6315)

MotivationEdit

Provides useful historical information on referees in all UEFA competitions. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I think having two types of persons in the same property would only add confusion. If someone saw the property UEFA coach ID (P7360) on a referee, they might be inclined to remove it thinking it is not meant for a referee. Also, having separate properties allows for a constraint for only association football referee (Q859528). S.A. Julio (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
We have the practice of not making separate properties for the same IDs: Wikidata:Property proposal/BDFutbol manager ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Soccerway coach ID. We only need to rename the property to UEFA person ID and delete separate coaches property. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Сидик из ПТУ. we need to rename P7360 and use it for referees too. - yona b (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Out of the 4 exemples provided, 3 lead to a 404 error page. Lucio fr (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @S.A._Julio: please see comments above. Shall I close this as "withdrawn"? --- Jura 12:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Trade (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Geneanet URL(s)Edit

Geneanet is one of the most popular French-speaking genealogical websites; hence VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Baidax
LearnKnowGive1
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment not opposed but not convinced yet. We already have GeneaStar person ID (P8094) (a sub-base of Geneanet for known people, this property is largely unused by the way), do we really need this property? And is this really an identifier? The url looks more like search results. Finally, is Geneanet really a "worthy" and serious source? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    Hello VIGNERON. Indeed we've Geneastar; but I think it may be useful having a broader database too (for less-known but nevertheless notable people, e. g.).
    We also have properties with URL datatypes, that doesn't strictly correspond to an "identifier": just think to Academia.edu profile URL (P5715) (@Thierry Caro: who initiated it).
    Regarding reliability, I would say that it depends on the genealogist's rigour (for instance Christophe de Montvallon, owner "Wikifrat", always cites his sources). But no more, and no less, than GeneaStar person ID (P8094), WikiTree person ID (P2949), Roglo person ID (P7929) (and so on).
    Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
  •   Comment I agree with Vingeron ; particularly, the url examples are not identifiers, but queries. I don't think this is stable enough to fill a property. Plus, two other questions : 1. Is it normal to have several entries (de Lesquen example)? 2. On which "instance of" (P31) items this property should apply ? only human beings or also families, family names, etc.? GAllegre (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    Hi GAllegre, see above for VIGNERON's comments.
    Even if their scheme is quite unusual, URLs seem perennial.
    Yes it is, given that there is one entry per family tree. And this person is present on several ones.
    Lastly, this applies only to individuals (as far as I know).
    Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
    Thanks for your answer, but for Academia.edu profile URL (P5715), even if it's an URL, it seems more a permanent one than a query like your examples with Geneanet. On my second question, I assume you want to apply this property strictly on persons. I'm not used to Geneanet, but I think a bit difficult to use it if there's no identifier strictly speaking, and particularly no single entry for a given person. GAllegre (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

ChristianKl (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Melderick (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton Jklamo (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Sam Wilson Gap9551 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Jrm03063 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Salgo60 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Egbe Eugene (talk) Eugene233 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc Gamaliel (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Pablo Busatto (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Theklan (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC) SM5POR (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Pmt (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC) CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Ayack (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


  Notified participants of WikiProject Genealogy. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

Absolute Games person IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person at the Absolute Games website
RepresentsAbsolute Games (Q3918839)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values[a-z\-\d]+
Example 1Jesper Kyd (Q316449)jesper-kyd
Example 2Dan Houser (Q935340)dan-houser
Example 3Cris Velasco (Q5185888)cris-velasco
Example 4Leslie Benzies (Q6530643)leslie-benzies
Sourcehttps://ag.ru/creators
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://ag.ru/creators/$1
See alsoProperty proposal/Absolute Games game ID, Property proposal/Absolute Games developer and publisher IDs

MotivationEdit

A video game online database. One of the most famous and comprehensive Russian-language websites of this kind. INS Pirat (t | c) 20:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support--Trade (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I actually overlooked that it's now just a Russian replica of English-language https://rawg.io. Though, that website doesn't have own Wikidata properties as well, and the team of its developers is Russian. The "old" AG.ru game database (it includes some 34,000 games, and no pages on companies or people) was archived here. So what should be done to these property proposals, what do you think, Trade? --INS Pirat (t | c) 21:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Cwf97 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Esteban16 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Peterchanws Brasig Le Yota de Mars YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Coloradohusky CptViraj BugWarp ʂɤɲ User:Nw520 Cynde Moya Dexxor Floyd-out CadetPatrick AntisocialRyan   Notified participants of WikiProject Video games --Misc (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support--Cwf97 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (EST)

Geneanet genealogist IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a genealogist (whether professional or not) on Geneanet
RepresentsGeneanet (Q3100478)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Julien Cassaigne (Q46994780)cassaigne
Example 2Gwendal Rannou (Q78161745)gwnrnn
Example 3MISSING
Planned use 
Formatter URLhttps://www.geneanet.org/profil//$1


92.184.98.227 18:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Brest IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Brest
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Hyacinthe Martin Bizet (Q69664766)Hyacinthe_Martin_Bizet,_Maire_de_Brest
Example 2Victor Pierre Le Gorgeu (Q3557509)Victor_Le_Gorgeu
Example 3Nathalie Lemel (Q2706181)Nathalie_Le_Mel
Formatter URLhttp://www.wiki-brest.net/index.php/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Baidax
LearnKnowGive1
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

  • Hesitating between   Neutral and   Support. See also comment by Manu on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wiki-Narbonne ID, Wiki-Brest is bigger but not really active these day.   Comment is "external id" the correct datatype for this? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Pymouss (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As a wiki title, I wonder if this "identifier" is stable enough to be used as an external id. Not so sure.GAllegre (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Niort IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Niort
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1André Texier (Q95874071)Andr%C3%A9_TEXIER
Example 2Arthur Taire (Q95874859)TAIRE_Arthur_(Ancien_Mus%C3%A9e_de_Niort)
Example 3Pierre Moinot (Q1235443)MOINOT_Pierre
Formatter URLhttp://www.wiki-niort.fr/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Baidax
LearnKnowGive1
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

  Oppose Manu1400 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Pas-de-Calais IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki Pas-de-Calais
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Jules Catoire (Q3188475)Jules_Catoire
Example 2Nicolas François Enlart (Q24090900)Nicolas_Enlart_(1760-1842)
Example 3Bernard Chochoy (Q2897686)[9]
Formatter URLhttp://www.wikipasdecalais.fr/index.php?title=$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Baidax
LearnKnowGive1
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Wikimanche IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wikimanche
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Philippe Gosselin (Q3379940)Philippe_Gosselin
Example 2Stéphane Travert (Q3502105)St%C3%A9phane_Travert
Example 3Bertrand Sorre (Q30390636)Bertrand_Sorre
Formatter URLhttps://www.wikimanche.fr/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Baidax
LearnKnowGive1
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

  • Hesitating between   Neutral and   Support. See also comment by Manu on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wiki-Narbonne ID, Wiki-Brest is bigger but not really active these day.   Comment is "external id" the correct datatype for this? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Anjou IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Anjou
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Augustine Girault-Lesourd (Q95879252)Augustine_Girault-Lesourd
Example 2Ludovic Alleaume (Q3266100)Ludovic_Alleaume
Example 3Germaine Canonne (Q95878750)Germaine_Canonne
Formatter URLhttps://www.wiki-anjou.fr/index.php/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Pierre André
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Baidax
LearnKnowGive1
  Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

  • Hesitating between   Neutral and   Support. See also comment by Manu on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wiki-Narbonne ID, Wiki-Brest is bigger but not really active these day.   Comment is "external id" the correct datatype for this? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Scholars Strategy Network IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for a person in the Scholars Strategy Network
RepresentsScholars Strategy Network (Q17092920)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[a-z\-]+
Example 1Alex Piquero (Q27058048)alex-piquero
Example 2Keith Humphreys (Q43401810)keith-humphreys
Example 3Joshua Inwood (Q81283729)joshua-inwood
Example 4Samara Klar (Q91596548)samara-klar
Sourcehttps://scholars.org/connect-scholar
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source1800+
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://scholars.org/scholar/$1

MotivationEdit

An academic association. Among other things, the profile pages include the mass media publications. INS Pirat (t | c) 22:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Support Looks useful to me, there is a lot of info there. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry.com profile IDEdit

   Under discussion
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed valuesletters and numbers
Example 1Richard Feynman (Q39246)24-4mlgvl
Example 2David M. Himmelblau (Q59626616)24-17j7296
Example 3Morris Shamos (Q96043428)24-8gvttl
Formatter URLhttps://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/$1
See alsoGeni.com profile ID (P2600), DAR ancestor ID (P7969)

MotivationEdit

I figured it would make sense to add this since we already have Geni.com profile ID (P2600). Bender235 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Is this ID stable?--GZWDer (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You mean does it change over time? --Bender235 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes "stable" means we can expect it to not change over time. --Melderick (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If you ckeck me in my tree person/tree/20261258/person/921521013/facts looks like they have unique ids for every tree and person? feels better if they had unique ids per person. If someone "import" a person into another tree can we find that person in Ancestry or do we need to add another Wikidata property value... - Salgo60 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that david-m-himmelblau-24-17j7296 points to records about anyone named "David M. Himmelblau", not just David M. Himmelblau (Q59626616)? --Bender235 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Bender235:, I don't know what Salgo60 meant but the question you mention is interesting. What is the answer ? --Melderick (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
To my knowledge they are unique. --Bender235 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ChristianKl (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Melderick (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton Jklamo (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Sam Wilson Gap9551 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Jrm03063 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Salgo60 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Egbe Eugene (talk) Eugene233 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc Gamaliel (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Pablo Busatto (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Theklan (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC) SM5POR (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Pmt (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC) CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Ayack (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


  Notified participants of WikiProject Genealogy --- Jura 14:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose. Are these IDs stable? What form of authority control is practiced? Since the same person can exist in any number of user-created family trees could there potentially be an infinite number of identifiers for the same individual? Gamaliel (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have an example of the same person having multiple IDs? --Bender235 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For the sake of argument, let's assume this can't happen somehow. Only one tree is displayed on the examples you linked. What process is used to decide which tree is displayed? If we are going to create a property for a website which relies on a huge amount of user-generated data, we should have some idea of how it sorts through all that data and decides, hey, this is the correct tree out of 1000 trees. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: These appear to be new landing pages for unique people. Previously landing pages were for first_name and last_name combinations, and pointed to the various trees that combination was in, and you could only see more information if you had a paid account. It really only served as a teaser, to get you pay for an account, once you saw a familiar name. Familysearch also has a unique landing page for people, that is viewable by people not registered for an account. See for example: Anton Julius Winblad at Familysearch vs. Anton Julius Winblad at Ancestry The link at Familysearch takes you to his full record once logged in to a free account. The Ancestry one has no more information beyond what you see on the landing page, since he may appear in a dozen trees. --RAN (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unlike FamilySearch (Q3066228), Geni.com (Q2621214) or WikiTree (Q1074931) Ancestry (Q26878196) is not "single tree" based, but rather individual tree based. Merging people from different trees is not possible, only "connect" them (with paid account only). Duplicates are inevitable.--Jklamo (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

CAOI person IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for architects described by Contemporary Architecture of Iran
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Ahmad Sardar-Afkhami (Q96115450)450
Example 2Bahram Shirdel (Q4842852)485
Example 3Dariush Borbor (Q20110150)504
Number of IDs in source~400
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttp://www.caoi.ir/en/architects/item/$1

MotivationEdit

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1Veertje (talk • contribs) at 19:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

DiscussionEdit

  •   OpposeEihel (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eihel: Property proposal is not a vote, so simply voting is not useful.--GZWDer (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

BWFpara.tournamentsoftware.com player IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionBWF (Badminton World Federation) player ID for parabadminton players
Representsbadminton player (Q13141064)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainWikidata property for authority control for people (Q19595382)
Allowed values[0-9A-F]{8}\-[0-9A-F]{4}\-[0-9A-F]{4}\-[0-9A-F]{4}\-[0-9A-F]{12}
Example 1https://bwfpara.tournamentsoftware.com/player-profile/F51389EB-B231-40E4-A0B7-E8BBB1101DCF
Example 2https://bwfpara.tournamentsoftware.com/player-profile/80C5E918-2B0B-418E-B3d0-09A84812A9FE
Example 3https://bwfpara.tournamentsoftware.com/player-profile/21C2BD61-06EF-4560-9193-E30780F6A6F3
Sourcehttps://bwfpara.tournamentsoftware.com/
Planned usenew bwfpara.tournamentsoftware.com-ID for the field of para-badminton, format / use similar like P2729
Formatter URLhttps://bwfpara.tournamentsoftware.com/player-profile/$1
See alsoP2729

MotivationEdit

Need of an official ID for parabadminton players. Florentyna (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Econlib person IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for an entry about a person in encyclopedia of the Library of Economics and Liberty by Liberty Fund, Inc., a private, educational foundation
RepresentsLibrary of Economics and Liberty (Q6542690)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaineconomist (Q188094)
Allowed values[A-Z]\w*
Example 1Karl Marx (Q9061)Marx
Example 2Joan Robinson (Q234793)Robinson
Example 3John Forbes Nash (Q128736)Nash
Example 4Vernon L. Smith (Q295717)SmithV
Sourcehttps://www.econlib.org/biographies/
Mix'n'match3645
Number of IDs in source112
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/$1.html
See alsoEconlib ID (P8369)

MotivationEdit

Econlib ID (P8369) has been created recently. I think it would be interested to also get information about people from this website. Pamputt (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • en:Liberty Fund - quoting Al Gore: "These groups are not providing unbiased judicial education. They are giving multithousand-dollar vacations to federal judges to promote their radical right-wing agenda at the expense of the public interest." However, this particular resource seems fairly neutral, despite the underlying bias. Economics as a discipline has a pretty "libertarian" bias so the funding source may be somewhat moot here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC).
  •   Support. --Gerwoman (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Linking to a database does not mean endorsing the people who run it. These biographies seem fine. –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ missionary IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID of a missionary in Church of Jesus Christ missionary database (1830-1930)
RepresentsThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Q42504)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpeople
Allowed values[a-z]+(-[a-z]+)*-\d{4}
Example 1Lester Herrick (Q6531876)lester-james-herrick-1827
Example 2George Q. Cannon (Q947083)george-quayle-cannon-1827
Example 3Wilford Woodruff (Q560707)wilford-woodruff-1807
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source40000
Formatter URLhttps://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/missionary/individual/$1
Robot and gadget jobsMix'n'Match may help
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/Church of Jesus Christ pioneer ID

MotivationEdit

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Oppose A website of a cult is not a reliable source. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Visite fortuitement prolongée: Have you looked at the linked pages? They present extensive factual information on each person about their travels around the world, this seems of general interest where we have existing Wikidata items for these people. Why would you reject such information? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Because a website of a cult is not a reliable source in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • So I assume you similarly opposed French Catholic Church structure ID (P3396) etc.? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • No. I am using the word « cult » in its pejorative meaning. «  le terme a pris dans plusieurs langues, et particulièrement en français, une dimension péjorative voire polémique1,2, et tend à y désigner à présent un groupe ou une organisation, souvent mais pas nécessairement à caractère religieux, dont les croyances, les pratiques ou le comportement sont jugés obscurs, inquiétants ou nocifs par le reste de la société1. § Les responsables des groupes dits « sectaires » sont souvent suspectés d'étouffer la liberté individuelle au sein du groupe ou de manipuler mentalement leurs membres, en s'appropriant parfois leurs biens et les maintenant par divers procédés dans un état de sujétion psychologique ou physique, entre autres par la fatigue, et en outre de menacer l'ordre public3. » [10] Also, I don't like an organieation who rule against homosexuality, and who baptize (with her own rites) many (metric) tons of human beings without their consent. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            • @Visite fortuitement prolongée: I don't understand your claims here, the Roman Catholic church fits all those criteria at least as well (do babies consent to baptism? How?). Is nobody excommunicated any more? At least they're not burned at the stake these days! :) ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
            • By the way, en:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in France has some discussion of this church in relation to the French definition of cult, under the "Reception" heading; however the frwiki version uses the word "culte" several times apparently non-pejoratively, perhaps there's a meaning distinction I'm missing here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
          • According to Britannica, "the beliefs of the church are characterized by a unique understanding of the Godhead, emphasis on family life, belief in continuing revelation, desire for order, respect for authority, and missionary work. Its members obey strict prohibitions on alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea and promote education and a vigorous work ethic". And Mormonism has "more than 16 million members". They can be wrong, but I don't thing that this definition of cult should be applied to them. --Gerwoman (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gerwoman (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Not liking a certain religion does not make theirbdqtabases untrustworthy. --Trade (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support in case that was not clear. However I'm not marking as "ready" given my involvement in the above discussion, maybe somebody else can judge that? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral same concerns as Visite fortuitement prolongée, however the database looks valid to me. --Hannes Röst (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Even you consider LDS a cult after 200 years of existence, and 10M adherents, their database of information would be the best source of information on them. --RAN (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ pioneer IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID of a missionary in Church of Jesus Christ pioneer database
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpeople
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Lester Herrick (Q6531876)5844
Example 2Charles Shumway (Q61031282)451
Example 3Jesse N. Smith (Q6186696)59416559495712494840
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source58000
Formatter URLhttps://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/overlandtravel/pioneers/$1/
Robot and gadget jobsMix'n'Match may help
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/Church of Jesus Christ missionary ID

MotivationEdit

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

@Visite fortuitement prolongée: Are you doing internet censorship? 轻语者 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Nauvoo community project IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID of a missionary in Nauvoo community project
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpeople
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Lester Herrick (Q6531876)49589
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Formatter URLhttp://nauvoo.byu.edu/ViewPerson.aspx?ID=$1
Robot and gadget jobsMix'n'Match may help

MotivationEdit

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Dignity Memorial person IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier used by Dignity Memorial for its obituaries
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Howard Ross Gould (Q60228211)5651016
Example 2Suzanne Cates Dodson (Q53499946)5886611
Example 3Thayer Crane Lindauer (Q55755496)8870364
Example 4Matthew Gamaliel Carter (Q6790535)5033248
Example 5Sarah Grossman (Q96095998)9203495 -->
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/$1
See alsoLegacy.com person ID (P8367)

MotivationEdit

Website widely used to publish obituaries 1Veertje (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support. But where were these obits initially published? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
it seems to me that, unlike Legacy.com, these obituaries are exclusively published on the website as part of a package deal with the undertakers that are part of the franchise behind the website. 1Veertje (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --RAN (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Draft Review IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a basketball player in the database of The Draft Review
RepresentsQ97106039
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values[1-9]\d{0,4}
Example 1Zion Williamson (Q29165842) -> 12099
Example 2De'Andre Hunter (Q55356794) -> 12120
Example 3David Robinson (Q211876) -> 1641
Sourcehttps://www.thedraftreview.com/
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.thedraftreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=$1

MotivaciónEdit

I want to add this ID to the authority control template. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

@John Vandenberg:. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap user nameEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiondisplay name for a contributor to the OpenStreetMap project
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), internet bot (Q191865)
Allowed values[^\r\n]+
Example 1Steve Coast (Q56200)Steve
Example 2Steve Coast (Q56200)SteveC
Example 3Allan Phillip Mustard (Q96951728)apm-wa
Example 4Kate Chapman (Q62415412)wonderchook
Example 5Pavel Cvrček (Q12044027)Pavel Cvrček
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source6,558,088 as of 2020-07-10T22:00:05Z
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/user/$1
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/OpenStreetMap numeric user ID (qualifier), Twitter username (P2002) (another property for user names that users can change)

MotivationEdit

Some notable individuals have contributed to OpenStreetMap. This identifier would make it easier to access their contributions to the project. Like Twitter username (P2002), an OpenStreetMap user can change their user name at any time. This property would need to be qualified with a Wikidata:Property proposal/OpenStreetMap numeric user ID property similar to Twitter user numeric ID (P6552) that uniquely, permanently identifies the user. (OpenStreetMap also assigns a numeric user identifier to each user.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

OpenStreetMap numeric user IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumeric identifier for a user on OpenStreetMap; use as qualifier for Wikidata:Property proposal/OpenStreetMap user name
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), internet bot (Q191865)
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Steve Coast (Q56200)Steve → 1
Example 2Steve Coast (Q56200)SteveC → 682
Example 3Allan Phillip Mustard (Q96951728)apm-wa → 1960718
Example 4Kate Chapman (Q62415412)wonderchook → 95488
Example 5Pavel Cvrček (Q12044027)Pavel Cvrček → 571360
Number of IDs in source6,558,088 as of 2020-07-10T22:00:05Z
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/OpenStreetMap user name, Twitter user numeric ID (P6552)

MotivationEdit

For use as a qualifier on Wikidata:Property proposal/OpenStreetMap user name, because OpenStreetMap users can change their user names at any time. The numeric user ID is fixed and unique, but I'm unaware of a convenient way to link to a numeric user ID, so I'm proposing that the data type be numeric. (Some OpenStreetMap-related tools like [11] accept UIDs as parameters, but I don't know of an OSM page that takes a UID in the URL, and most OSM API methods that work with UIDs require authentication because they aren't really meant for public consumption.) Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support Arlo Barnes (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The only URLs with user ID parameter that are mentioned in the API documentation are lists of changesets[12] - not sure if these should be presented as links or just mentioned in property documentation but they can be used to find the username if the numeric ID is known and there is at least one changeset associated with it. Peter James (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Should it be an external identifier? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Visite fortuitement prolongée: Ideally, yes, but I can't find anything decent to link to. External identifiers need to be linkable, correct? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    No if I understand correctly Help:Data type#external-id. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    NIEA building ID (P1460) is an external identifier with no link. Peter James (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, in that case, I've switched the proposal back to being an external identifier. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - Salgo60 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I don't like putting a qualifier of a permanent identifier on a changeable statement. I'd rather model it the opposite way around. Or isn't this up for discussion? --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

HLTV Player IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionPlayer ID in HLTV
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values^[a-z]+\/\d+\/\S+
Example 1Kenny Schrub (Q20379258) -> player/7167/kennyS
Example 2Alexander Kostyliev (Q48428626) -> player/7998/s1mple
Example 3MISSING
Formatter URLhttps://www.hltv.org/$1/wd

MotivationEdit

Per WD:Property proposal/HLTV ID 轻语者 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

People Australia IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID of someone in People Australia
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1James Baker (Q97703821) → baker-james-29896
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].
Number of IDs in source30395
Formatter URLhttp://peopleaustralia.anu.edu.au/biography/$1

MotivationEdit

Note this is a superproperty of Australian Dictionary of Biography ID (P1907), since all values of P1907 is also valid for this property, but not vice versa. I am not sure what's the best way to handle it. GZWDer (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Opta football player IDEdit

   Ready Create
DescriptionOpta football player ID
Representsassociation football player (Q937857)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainWikidata property for authority control for people (Q19595382), Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637), Wikidata property related to association football (Q23661205)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Lionel Messi (Q615) → 19054
Example 2Jimmy McLaughlin (Q6200801) → 102553
Example 3Omar Ciss (Q97482469) → 506076
Planned useImmediately, I'd like to use this to link MLS players with USL Championship players. But there are many more potential use cases beyond that.
Number of IDs in source~500,000 (The total isn't published by Opta, but the IDs seem to have been assigned sequentially, and as listed in the examples, they've gotten at least as high as 506076.)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobscollecting data, using the IDs to link other datasets

MotivationEdit

Opta Sports (Q3354444) is a very prominent sports data company, and they use a consistent ID scheme across all their association football data (which they claim includes 1,000+ leagues/competitions and 200,000+ matches). They do not offer the data for free on their own website (and annoyingly, even their documentation requires a paying account), but their data is used by many other websites, so the IDs can still be found all over the web. For example, Lionel Messi (player 19054) plays in FC Barcelona (team 178) in La Liga (competition 23). Knowing those three IDs, you can find his 2019 season stats on beIN Sports, Mediaset, Telemundo Deportes, and many others (try googling inurl:19054 messi).

There are also many other sites which use the data without exposing it in the URL, by way of Opta's widgets; e.g. USL Championship and Major League Soccer. Although these are not useful for the purpose of automatically generating external links, it is quite useful as a universal identifier that can be used to link datasets. For example, I have sources that provide Opta IDs for players in bothUSL Championship and Major League Soccer. I'd like to use these datasets to systematically fill in MLS player ID (P2398) based on known values of USL Championship player ID (P4019), and vice-versa. There are likely to be many more use cases like this, as Opta data feeds are fairly popular in the industry. –IagoQnsi (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support--Trade (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Microsoft MVP profile IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Award recipient
RepresentsMicrosoft Most Valuable Professional (Q531193)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Troy Hunt (Q23308064)4031649
Example 2Dino Esposito (Q5278509)33676
Example 3Hervé Thiriez (Q33104574)4024545
Sourcehttps://mvp.microsoft.com/MvpSearch
Planned useExternal links, populating award received (P166), scraping social media identifiers
Number of IDs in source2881 as of August 2020
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/PublicProfile/$1
Robot and gadget jobsAlready loaded into Mix'n'match: catalog 3772

Formatter URL notes: Another form is https://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/-$1 (usually seen with a human-readable slug before the hyphen), which redirects to the URL listed above. Also, "en-us" can be replaced with these other language codes: de-DE, en-US, es-ES, fr-FR, it-IT, ja-JP, ko-KR, pt-BR, ru-RU, zh-CN, zh-TW. (Most microsoft.com URLs allow you to remove the language code and let Microsoft decide the language via content negotiation, but that trick doesn't work on either of these URLs for whatever reason.)

MotivationEdit

Recipients of a noteworthy award. I scraped the list of IDs into Mix'n'match and it seems we lack entries for the majority of MVPs, so this would help fill a coverage gap. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Discord usernameEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person or bot on Discord
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainDiscord (Q22907849)
Example
Motivation

MotivationEdit

The only Discord-related property is Property:P6229, which is deprecated and no longer used by Discord. Adding this will also need a Discord numeric ID property, since usernames and discriminators (the numbers after #) can change, but IDs can not. IDs are given to many things on Discord, though, like servers, roles, custom emotes, and channels, so potentially at least a Discord server name and Discord server invite property will be needed. AntisocialRyan (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Also, the ID would work like Twitter username, where it is required as a qualifier. AntisocialRyan (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment is there a way to link to a user profile to make this property more useful? --Hannes Röst (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't know this, but there actually is, and it isn't documented well. (https://discord.com/users/$1) For servers, it is https://discord.com/channels/$1 (this will bring you to the first channel in the server since none is specified) AntisocialRyan (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    Whoops, I can't put it in the formatter URL because it is for the ID and not the username. There may need to be a separate user ID and server ID property then in this case. AntisocialRyan (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Rheinland-Pfälzische Personendatenbank IDEdit

   Ready Create
DescriptionStatic ID ("Zitierlink") of an entry in Rheinland-Pfälzische Personendatenbank (the "recnums" is not stable!)
RepresentsRheinland-Pfälzische Personendatenbank (Q15842315)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterQ22963595
Allowed valuespk\d{5}
Example 1Lothar Hermann (Q57272017)pk05176
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].
Number of IDs in source12202
Expected completenesseventually complete
Formatter URLhttp://www.rppd-rlp.de/$1
Robot and gadget jobsYes

MotivationEdit

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support --Emu (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Doktori.hu IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for Hungarian scientist (based on doctoral degree)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Gyöngyi Horváth (Q90042669)5044
Example 2Ferenc Bari (Q99673287)2850
Example 3Péter Kása (Q27076112)4921
Formatter URLhttps://doktori.hu/index.php?menuid=192&lang=EN&sz_ID=$1

MotivationEdit

The site is specific to Hungarian doctorates, and seems to be a mixture of academic genealogy (ala Mathematics Genealogy Project ID (P549)) and scientific bibliography (ala Publons author ID (P3829) etc.) Bender235 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

SAT IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID number of the member of Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda (World Non-National Association), published in one of its Yearbooks (e.g. "Josef Borell, SAT ID 357")
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainPersons
Allowed values[1-9][0-9]{0,4}
Example 1Ralph Bonesper (Q20477667) → 29
Example 2Leo Lentaigne (Q20481806) → 19332
Example 3Natan Futerfas (Q12353074) → 1519
SourceYearbooks of Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda (e.g. 1923, p. 84)

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wierzbowski (talk • contribs) at 05:35, 31 July 2020‎ (UTC).

DiscussionEdit

  •   Conditional support Member? at what level? As an external-ID, can we have the links on the examples, please? (… or even completely filled, it's even better) Thanks. —Eihel (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Minecraft UUIDEdit

   Ready Create
DescriptionThe UUID of a Minecraft account (include hyphens)
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainMinecraft (Q49740)
Example
Formatter URLhttps://namemc.com/profile/$1
Motivation

MotivationEdit

There is currently no way to add a Minecraft account as an identifier. Minecraft is one of the most popular games, if not the most popular, and having other game usernames but not this one seems unreasonable. UUIDs cannot be changed, but usernames can. I will be making a proposal for usernames as well, which should probably be used as a qualifier for this. AntisocialRyan (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Minecraft usernameEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe username of a Minecraft account
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainMinecraft (Q49740)
Example
Formatter URLhttps://namemc.com/profile/$1
Motivation

MotivationEdit

Minecraft username may be needed in addition to the Minecraft UUID identifier which I also proposed. This should be used as a qualifier to Minecraft username, or possibly the other way around like Twitter numeric ID is a qualifier to Twitter username. AntisocialRyan (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Oppose I don't see how that's useful Germartin1 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support This is useful in addition to the UUID because historically, usernames were used as identifiers from the game's release in 2011 up until 2018, when the legacy API for usernames was shut off. As a result, there are a number of sites which still use usernames as soft identifiers (such as URL slugs). For example, Markus Persson can be found at https://skinsmc.org/user/Notch and https://www.mcbans.com/player/Notch/. Usernames are unique, and relatively permanent (they can only be changed every 30 days, and most users rarely change them if ever). They are much more recognizable, and definitely worth storing in addition to the UUID (though admittedly, website username (P554) would work just as well for that). Additionally, there could arise a scenario where someone's username is known but, due to account deletion, changed username, etc, the UUID cannot be determined. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

NPS people IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for a person on the website of the National Park Service, an American federal agency
RepresentsNational Park Service (Q308439)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[a-z]+(-[a-z]+)*
Example 1Bill Clinton (Q1124)president-william-jefferson-clinton
Example 2Biddy Mason (Q4904088)biddymason
Example 3Cathay Williams (Q5052154)cwilliams
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.nps.gov/people/$1.htm
See alsoPark Alpha Code (P4083), National Park Service place ID (P8649)

MotivationEdit

This new Wikidata property for authority control for people (Q19595382) would help us improve our biographies of people from the United States of America (Q30). Thierry Caro (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Thierry Caro Fuzheado

  Notified participants of WikiProject United States. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

PeoplePill person IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a human on PeoplePill.com
RepresentsPeoplePill (Q96474474)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainQ5
Allowed values[^/]+
Example 1Sarah Silverman (Q229013)sarah-silverman
Example 2Javier Báez (Q16163541)javier-baez
Example 3Eric Plakun (Q26702492)eric-plakun
Sourcehttps://peoplepill.com/
Planned usematching people to biographical information
Number of IDs in source7,036,620 (per sitemap.xml)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://peoplepill.com/people/$1/

MotivationEdit

Seems to be a quite sizable database of detailed biographical info covering people from just about any field. IagoQnsi (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment This site seems a duplication of (i.e. derived from) Wikidata. (this is not an oppose though)--GZWDer (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Decorated of the Italian RepublicEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionDecorated for honors of the Italian Republic record on the Quirinale site
RepresentsOrder of Merit of the Italian Republic (Q1059569)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainQ5
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Brigitte Bierlein (Q916162)360254
Example 2Dieter Kandlhofer (Q56765491)360257
Example 3Andreas Michaelis (Q499569)360261
Example 4Wolfgang Sobotka (Q2591433)360264
Sourcehttps://www.quirinale.it/Onorificenze
Planned usematching people to biographical information
Number of IDs in source326820
Expected completenessalways incomplete
Formatter URLhttps://www.quirinale.it/onorificenze/insigniti/$1

MotivationEdit

I think this online database with over 300.000 cards of Decorated for honors biographies could bring additional value on wikidata. Luckyz (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

xHamster performer IDEdit

Descriptionidentifier for a porn performer in the database of the xHamster website
RepresentsxHamster (Q16617922)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
ExampleNSFW:
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Mix'n'match3901
Formatter URLhttps://xhamster.com/pornstars/$1
Motivation

This new Wikidata property related to erotica or pornography (Q53671196) would enhance our coverage of pornographic actor (Q488111). Thierry Caro (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Trade, Crazy hat royal, AntisocialRyan, ImprovedWikiImprovment: It may or may not be of interest to you. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support. This one is good too. AntisocialRyan (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Trade (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lockal (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Crazy hat royal (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment@Thierry Caro: Any plans of making Mix'n'Match catalog? --Trade (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Trade: I can do it at some point later. So you can feel free if you wanna go for it now. It would be great. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Do you have an easy to understand guide? @Thierry Caro:--Trade (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
        • @Trade:   Done. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
          • @Thierry Caro: Are the ID's created by users or by the xHamster staff? A lot of the entries are of somewhat low quality--Trade (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
            • I honestly do not know. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
              • I think it would be for the best if entries not containing any videos of the subject to be marked as N.A.. Does that sound fair? I know some users were against matching Pornhub entries with non-adult actors. We should get that sorted out before this identifier gets created. @Thierry Caro: --Trade (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Also: @Robin van der Vliet, ChristianSW: becuase of their previous votes.--Trade (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                • I think of celebrities having unsollicited entries on such websites as people having bad press coverage. And I believe it is part of our job to link to content about people regardless of whether or not it is positive or negative for them, from a PR perspective. Sadly enough, porn sites are sometimes the most 'negative' thing you'll get in an external ID section that should technically offer multiple conflicting points of view about the given individual, but is most of the time entirely hagiographic. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                    • I said that ID's should be marked as N.A if theyi don't contain any footage depicting theb subject@Thierry Caro:--Trade (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Baidax (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro, Trade, Crazy hat royal, AntisocialRyan, Lockal, Baidax:   Done xHamster performer ID (P8720) Pamputt (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

GeoGuessr IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person on GeoGuessr
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainGeoGuessr (Q13576160)
Example 1Antoine Daniel (Q20961690)5b074fcc596695b70811c9db / named as (P1810) → Mezzanine
Example 2MisterJDay (Q85708027)5b073639ff760f65bce12d62 / named as (P1810) → JDay
Example 3Xavier Dang (Q88555012)5d3e08f595bbda54e4d71668 / named as (P1810) → mistermv
Sourcehttps://www.geoguessr.com/search
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.geoguessr.com/user/$1
See alsoYouTube channel ID (P2397); Twitch channel ID (P5797)

MotivationEdit

A lot of video bloggers, streamers and notorious people have a GeoGuessr account, the username appears publicly on videos. Some even make it a specialization. Baidax (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Malmö MuseerEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID for person or company connected to an object at Malmö Museer
RepresentsMalmö museums (Q10576120)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainQ5 or any relevant object
Allowed valuesobject
Example 1Q10045564968051
Example 2Paul Åberg (Q6254637)401185
Example 3Sterling Bicycle Co. (Q7611373)402091
Sourcehttp://carlotta.malmo.se/carlotta-mmus/web
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 useFirst step to add property to existing objects with no external identifier, and where the object exists in Malmö Museer.
Number of IDs in source34 554
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttp://carlotta.malmo.se/carlotta-mmus/web/object/§1 – MISSING "$1"

MotivationEdit

Malmö Museer, the museums of Malmö, have exported all the objects in their collections to K-samsök, Property:P1260. That is, however, not the case for persons, organizations and companies in their database. They have metadata on 34 554 persons or companies in their database, which we cannot link to currently. This property would make it possible to link externally to their posts, which would provide an important external identifier for many Swedish artists and painters. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit


Personal nameEdit

ProfessionEdit