Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic


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

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.
Caveat
Do not use the Visual editor, because it will mess up the content of your request (the order of the template parameters will be shuffled and paragraphs are concatenated as one long string of text).

Creating the property

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

  On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2022/07.

GeneralEdit

fails compliance withEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionfails compliance of the test defined in the associated item
Data typeItem
Example 1Hackers (Q13908) → "fails compliance with" → Bechdel test (Q4165246)
Example 2instant-runoff voting (Q1491219) → "fails compliance with" → monotonicity criterion (Q6902035)
Example 3Copeland's method (Q5168347) → "fails compliance with" → independence of irrelevant alternatives (Q3150644)

MotivationEdit

We need the opposite of complies with (P5009) to state when an item doesn't comply with the criterion associated with an item. For example:

Could someone create a "fails compliance with" property? -- RobLa (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Summary of Wikidata:Project_chat/Archie/2020/01 conversation: this is what was discussed over at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2020/01 as part of the "Reasonably quick way to resolve 'non-compliance property' issue?" topic back in January/February. User:Jura1 suggested modeling this after assessment (P5021) and test score (P5022), allowing us to specify other options besides "complies", "doesn't comply". User:Ghouston suggested instead that we can add qualifiers to this new property if we need to move beyond binary compliance/non-compliance. User:Ls1g suggested a change to the data model to allow statements which negate any existing property, and links to this paper: "Negative Statements Considered Useful" - Hiba Arnaout, Simon Razniewski, and Gerhard Weikum.

  • Comment - Please edit the summary above if you believe there is a problem with it. I'd still prefer taking User:Ghouston's approach as I understand it, which would mean creating a "Fails compliance with" property. -- RobLa (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


  • @Jura1:, can you give details of how you think it should be done? You want to replace complies with (P5009) with a new property, such that there's only a single property for defining compliance? Then the statement itself would be meaningless without interpreting the qualifiers, which would make it harder to write queries. Ghouston (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the explanation on project chat is fairly clear. Please comment there if you think it needs more input. --- Jura 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ghouston:, thank you bringing the conversation to this proposal page. I agree with you that queries seem a lot easier with the addition of "fails compliance with" than queries involving a new regime modeled after assessment (P5021) and test score (P5022). This page seems like a better place to discuss alternatives to "fails compliance with" than the omnibus project chat page. -- RobLa (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: I don't think it's correct to say that compliance is not binary. A voting system either complies with a criterion or it doesn't; there is no in-between. The reason that table has cells other than Yes or No is because it combines closely-related voting systems into the same row, and closely-related criteria into the same column. In other words, some of the rows in that table are actually classes of voting systems rather than instances of voting systems. Omegatron (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. There should be a better data model for both this and complies with (P5009) in such cases. Jura1's suggestion looks workable. --Yair rand (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there any precedent for a statement that's meaningless without interpreting the qualifiers? I can't think of one, but I don't know them all. It would be like X <compliance> Y. Ghouston (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ghouston: disjoint union of (P2738) only allows list values as qualifiers (Q23766486) as a value. --Yair rand (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's meaningless. It's like the "test taken" mentioned on Project Chat or "significant event". We know that's a valid criterion/test/event for the item, we just don't have full details. The approach seems more suitable for non-binary content like the voting systems description that is planned.
      Also, I don't get why Bechtel test is mentioned. It isn't even used with the other property. --- Jura 23:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - These are binary criteria, and so "test score" or "degree of compliance" or other qualifiers are irrelevant and make queries overly complex. "change to the data model to allow statements which negate any existing property" might be fine, too, but maybe more complicated to use. Omegatron (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support. While "compliance" is binary, Wikidata properties explicitly allows "unknown" and "no value", and implicitly "we don't care" / "there is no verifiable info about this" (by not including a statement). So it will be helpful to have a property to record notable instances of test failures. I also think we should require references for uses of this property so we don't collect irrelevant "failures" and can back ourselves up if people complain we're bad-mouthing them. ("Weak" because I won't have time to help curate this property, but I support whoever wants to do this.) Deryck Chan (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wallacegromit1, focus on media historiography and works from the Global South Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc   Notified participants of WikiProject Media Representation

  •   Comment We spoke about this at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Media_Representation#Fails_compliance_with and we would rather use Yair rand's and Jura's method (using assessment (P5021) or another, similar property that is not restricted to humans with a new qualifier outcome or test result). While Bechdel test results may be modelled using complies with/fails compliance with, this is not true for many other tests (we need a "not applicable" for some tests and some tests don't deliver a "fail" or "pass" result but just a score). The assessment (P5021) and test outcome approach has the advantage to be more flexible. Please have a look at the model presented at the discussion mentioned above to have an overview about tests that don't fit into the complies with/fails compliance with model and how we could model them after assessment (P5021) and test outcome. So please don't use the Bechdel test (Q4165246) as an example for this property as we are not going to model Bechdel test results like that.
That said I won't oppose this property. I even think that complies with/fails compliance with could be useful for us as a qualifier. There are tests that require certain criteria (e.g the Riz Test) or a number of criteria (e.g. the Feldman test) to be met. To be able to make it explicit which criteria are met and which not is, besides other advantages, necessary so that we can meet a minimal standard of sourcing (e.g. while there will be few sources for a certain film that it meets the Feldman test there are enough sources which can be used to decide if a film has a female screenwriter). We are currently using criterion used (P1013) to record the criteria which were crucial for the outcome but this does not fit nicely all tests - sometimes it may seem a bit shoehorned. So could we use this as a qualifier? In this case I would support this. @RobLa: (as this proposal is quite old...) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
To me as Valentina.Anitnelav points out, assessment (P5021) could be used instead, especially with assessment outcome (Property:P9259). Are there things that cannot be described with assessment (P5021) and assessment outcome (Property:P9259)? For instance if a hardware component tried to respect a standard and failed we could add that it failed compliance with that standard according to <the organization that reviewed it> GNUtoo (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

sorting weightEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionwhen listing multiple properties, properties with a higher sorting weight are supposed to be shown before properties with lower sorting weight
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Example 1instance of (P31) → 100000
Example 2subclass of (P279) → 9999
Example 3occupation (P106) → 1000

MotivationEdit

We have currently multiple cases where properties have to be sorted. When displaying the normal properties and external-id properties on a page they have to be sorted.

When suggesting properties to the user according to properties for this type (P1963) there's a need for sorting. The proposed property can be used as a qualifer to help sort that list.

For qualifiers we might have in future a solution that uses sources the suggested qualifiers from qualifier for this property (P8379) where the sort order can also be specified with this property.

ChristianKl
ArthurPSmith
d1g
JakobVoss
Jura
Jsamwrites
MisterSynergy
Salgo60
Harshrathod50
Wildly boy
ZI Jony
Ederporto
99of9
Danrok
Eihel
Emw
Fralambert
GZWDer
Ivan A. Krestinin
Jonathan Groß
Joshbaumgartner
Kolja21
Kristbaum
MSGJ
Mattflaschen
MichaelSchoenitzer
Nightwish62
Pablo Busatto
Paperoastro
PinkAmpersand
Srittau
Thierry Caro
Tobias1984
Vennor
Yellowcard
Ivanhercaz
Tinker Bell
Bodhisattwa
Iwan.Aucamp
Cunme
NAH
Gnoeee
The-erinaceous-one
-akko
Mathieu Kappler
Dhx1
Lectrician1
Daniel Mietchen
  Notified participants of WikiProject Properties ChristianKl❫ 10:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support seems reasonable though I guess it can be a bit controversial as to what the right value should be. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Couldn't we just use MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties for this? Having two different sorting schemes feels like it's going to get complicated. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think Wikibase-SortedProperties is a good solution for multiple reasons and that it would be best to deprecate it sooner or later.
Having the data within properties makes it easier to discover how the sorting works for Wikidata users.
We will have federated Wikibase properties in the future. Having a concept of sorting weight allows sorting of properties from different Wikibases in a consistent manner without having to define all the sorting in one Wikibase.
Finally, I want a way that can be set more context dependent on properties for this type (P1963) and qualifier for this property (P8379). ChristianKl❫ 18:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there's an argument to be made for centralised sorting being better - with values on a per-property basis, it's much harder to group similar properties together, ensure they are kept in a consistent order, and so on. It feels to me like it would be more difficult to get a broad overview this way around, though I take your point about federated properties. But to be honest I don't really have a strong opinion, whatever works is fine. :)
I'm still not clear how this property would work, though - is the idea we create the property now and then develop a sorting mechanism which would use it? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I support this --Uni3993 (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There is already some sort of "weighted sorting" being done by the Wikibase (?) software when adding properties to items. Does that not suffice? —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The goal is to have a system where it's easier for users to change the sorting oder. ChristianKl❫ 18:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The community managed approach does not work particularly well with MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties, as opposed to the built-in suggestion mechanism. As far as I understand, the software sort of anticipates the best order of suggested properties based on the data present in an item. This seems much more sophisticated than a static list, where users might even try to push their favorite properties to the front. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It feels to me like there's some issue with it being intransparent of how the system actually works. Do you know whether it's documented somehow?
I think it would be great if it would both be documented and also possible for humans to decide what the best order happens to be. ChristianKl❫ 20:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It's called property suggester (Q86989962) (related: Extension:PropertySuggester (Q30101250), Extension:WikidataEntitySuggester (Q21679299), Help:Suggesters and selectors#Property suggester, …). You can use these items to search for more documentation on mediawiki.org or phabricator—I am not aware whether there is enough of it, however. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this intended to apply to identifiers too? In general I'd like to see further information about how these priorities should be decided. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the idea would be that it can also be used to sort identifiers. ChristianKl❫ 08:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The idea is to specify semantics about how sorting priorities can be expressed here. Later, when there are disagreements about how to decide the priority in a certain domain we can create policy to solve that. ChristianKl❫ 17:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • How are we going to determine the weights? BrokenSegue (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    Same wonder here. And what about a need of weights differentiated according to certain topics ? EG paintings with sorting of properties different from buildings? Bouzinac💬✒️💛 11:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    I guess that will be a curation decision by each project. --- Jura 15:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unclear determination of value Nepalicoi (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Signal numberEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionphone number for this person or organization used by the Signal app for secure communications
RepresentsSignal (Q19718090)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainproperty
Allowed values\d{10}
Example 1Ken Klippenstein (Q97940221)tel:2025101268
Example 2Micah Lee (Q15834986)tel:4159420460
Example 3Muck Rack (Q57500196)tel:2125001883
Sourcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)
Planned useUse it on Ken Klippenstein (Q97940221)
See also

MotivationEdit

Ken Klippenstein offers up his Signal number for submitting tips and leaks, so I wanted to add it to his Wikidata item somehow. QRep2020 (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

edit: The larger motivation here is that we should take advantage of the Wikidata knowledge graph to propagate the means of interacting with journalists, activists, etc. in a safe, end-to-end encrypted fashion. The graph already lists, for instance, the NY Times, yet it does not state how to contact the paper if one wishes to do so securely and secretively. Someone like Ken Klippenstein is urging whistleblowers and the like to reach out to him if they have information the public ought to know and so I think adding a property for editors to use to facilitate such efforts is a small price to pay for a positive social impact at large. QRep2020 (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment You should link the examples to Wikidata items that you propose they are for. See other property proposals for how to do this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @ArthurPSmith, QRep2020: I've fixed some things in the proposal. Also, I think the right datatype is URI, not external identifier. --Tinker Bell 01:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I've read some articles that suggested a person could get a Signal number without using an actual phone number so I was not sure how to classify. In any case, thank you to everyone for helping me with this as it is my first Wikidata property suggestion! QRep2020 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Do we have that many Signal users among our entries? --NMaia (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Any other thoughts or questions? I really think adding this property would contribute to the service. QRep2020 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support Listing contact addresses of individual people on Wikidata is complicated from a privacy perspective but not any different then phone numbers that we are already storing. ChristianKl❫ 13:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not see a good reason for this. Why not just use the existing properties and some qualifiers, e.g., either phone number (P1329) or streaming media URL (P963) (with RFC 3966: The tel URI for Telephone Numbers (Q47467363) Uniform Resource Identifier scheme (Q37071)) and qualifier of (P642) Signal (Q19718090)Uzume (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Please entertain the following reasons, Uzume and others: There is a separate Property for a fax number (fax number (P2900)) from the one for a telephone number (phone number (P1329)) which suggests there is already a point to distinguishing in Wikidata how different telephone "lines" function. Additionally, organizations often list their Signal numbers as is without qualifying them as also being telephone numbers of theirs, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/tips. Finally, I'd argue the qualifier route allows data extractors, everyone from scrapers to Google itself, to easily ignore such a "this is for Signal" note and therefore promotes the possibility of the number appearing elsewhere qua a regular telephone number when perhaps its owner only ever uses the number for Signal messaging and nothing else (perhaps via the method explored at https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-phone-number/). QRep2020 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am convinced by Uzume's suggestions to use a qualifier. The existence of one redundant property fax number (P2900) doesn't mean we should create another. And creating a separate property for some phone numbers just makes it harder for users of our data to understand it, not easier. JesseW (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it makes more sense to be a separate property as there are other qualifiers that can then be used such as start time (P580). If overloading phone number (P1329), we would lose this ability to have qualifiers about the subject's use of Signal. Per phone number (P1329) I suggest a string data type and no "tel:" prefix. --Dhx1 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not really convinced by this. Isn't this and Wikidata:Property proposal/WhatsApp_number today the default use for phone numbers? Not sure if Wikidata isn't a good way to check for availability. Potentially we would end up adding additional properties for other services. --- Jura 15:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Organizations might have a phone number and not a signal number, or only the signal number might be used, so having that looks useful. If we look at the signal protocol, it only uses phone numbers for the initial authentication. And once that's done you can use signal on a desktop computer that doesn't have access to the public switched telephone network (Q243961) at all. References: https://signal.org/download/ (I've accessed it with a desktop browser) says "To use the Signal desktop app, Signal must first be installed on your phone.", and if we look in more details there is a paper that explains how the signal protocol works in details (https://web.archive.org/web/20160828135326/https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/09%20when-signal-hits-the-fan-on-the-usability-and-security-of-state-of-the-art-secure-mobile-messaging.pdf) which shows that signal only uses the public switched telephone network (Q243961) for the very first authentication: "State-of-the-art end-to-end encrypted mobile messengers only require users to authenticate via their mobile number;" and "Alice and Bob want to use SIGNAL to exchange end-to-end encrypted messages. (1) Alice installs SIGNAL and verifies her mobile number at the SIGNAL Server with either a verification text message (SMS) or a voice call. Once verified, Alice creates different sets of keys: [...]". GNUtoo (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Nepalicoi (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my opposition to the now-declined Wikidata:Property proposal/WhatsApp number. Mahir256 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment It is not merely a telephone number and can be used within the Signal system without telephonic connection upon authentication as pointed out above. A user's Signal number can be identical to their current telephone number, but there are cases where it is not and having one will not get your the other; we distinguish maiden names and surnames with properties, do we not?
    Regarding comparisons to Whatsapp, Signal makes very clear its purpose is end-to-end encryption of messages with no metadata preservation, unlike Whatsapp. Providing a Signal number conveys a level of security that its owner has taken. QRep2020 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Neutral ~Namita (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

reason for normal rankEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to allow the reason to be indicated why a particular statement should have normal rank (and not preferred nor deprecated rank). Avoid using it when there is no statement with another rank nor a qualifier that might induce people to set deprecated rank. Sample use: a statement with an "end date" (P582) would generally have normal rank and not deprecated rank, nor should it be deleted nor overwritten
Data typeItem
Domainstatement and claims with normal Help:Ranking#rank (not preferred or deprecated)
Allowed valuesstatement no longer current (Q103841141) or other
Example 1United States of America (Q30) member of (P463) UNESCO (Q7809)
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
Example 2Brazil (Q155) member of (P463) Latin Union (Q123209)
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
Example 3Ronan Huon (Q654520) date of birth (P569) 1922
qualified with → new item for "less precise value"
Example 4Dalia Mya Schmidt-Foß (Q66490714) Instagram username (P2003) californiadalia
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
Example 5Worle Library and Children's Centre (Q55163610) coordinate location (P625) 51°21'39.474"N, 2°55'35.922"W
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
See alsoHelp:Ranking

MotivationEdit

It seems to me that preferred rank is generally more easily understood than normal rank for statements that are no longer current. While we have reason for preferred rank (P7452), we lack a qualifier for this. Obviously, it shouldn't be added to any statement with normal rank. See the description for when to use it. Please help improve it. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 10:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support Fit nicely with our semantics to give reasons for the other ranks. ChristianKl❫ 11:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see no need. United States of America (Q30) has more than 50 statements with member of (P463). Some of the currently valid statements have preferred rank, and some have normal rank. That is not good as it means it is harder to find the statements with normal rank. One of the most asked questions about SPARQL queries is why it doesn't find some statements. The answer usually is that the query find statements of "best rank", and the statement in question have normal rank, but other statements with preferred rank are the best rank.
I think it would be better to just give all statements here normal rank. It is too hard to maintain having dozens of statements with preferred rank for the same property. When new statements are added, many users will not set the rank from the default normal rank.
Do you have any other kind of examples where it would be relevant to give a reason for normal rank? --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Q30 just seems messy. Q155#P463 has it mostly right. That ranks can change isn't really a reason not to use them. We actually do have ranks because one should change the rank and not the statement itself. Maintaining them on countries is really trivial if not done manually. Statements with end dates are frequently misunderstood and either deleted, overwritten or deprecated. --- Jura 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe it would be better if this property was simply "reason for rank," to give it more flexibility. I'd also allow editors to explain why a statement is marked as preferred or obsolete. NMaia (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Supposedly, we could do that and replace the other. We'd have to make sure the rank can be deduced from the item used as value, otherwise we loose a way to check if the rank matches the reason. --- Jura 14:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I like the fact that reason for deprecation spells out deprecation. It makes it easier to see that the item is infact deprecated. ChristianKl❫ 11:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    I posit that properties with a conditional meaning (i.e. their meaning is instance specific) are a bad data smell which encourages lower data veracity. In this case the meaning would change depending on the current rank, removing a method of data constraint. SilentSpike (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Moebeus, Ayack, SilentSpike, SixTwoEight, YULdigitalpreservation: @Tagishsimon, Nomen ad hoc, Tinker Bell, Ghouston: as you participated in preferred rank property proposal, what's your view on this? --- Jura 11:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, I can't see the need of that.   Neutral therefore. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC).
    • I don't see the need of that. However, I like NMaia's comment. --Tinker Bell 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support While I'm not fully sold on the need, I certainly don't see any harm. Moebeus (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Hmm, I'm unsure. I do like the it allows intention to be captured in the data which makes it less prone to misunderstanding. However, what I don't like is that the application of this qualifier would be selective (i.e. there's always a reason a statement has a specific rank, be we wouldn't want to be adding this to every statement ever - I think the reasons will basically all boil down to "the data is valid"). In general, awareness of how ranks are intended to be used should be improved site-wide (i.e. editors need to stop deleting accurate data just because it has a temporal component to it). --SilentSpike (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    • One way of raising the awareness is reverting an edit and adding this qualifier. How do you usually do it? --- Jura 07:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The motivation section sounds like this property would be more "reason this is not preferred rank" - if this is created, would that be a better label? I assume we have no need for a "reason this is not deprecated rank" property? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That would be when users try to add deprecated rank incorrectly, or outright delete nor overwrite a statement. I'm not sure if I should be linking to specific edits here, but I suppose all of you have come across such edits. --- Jura 07:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I added some from a P2241 cleanup --- Jura 13:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This does not seem necessary. reason for deprecated rank (P2241) is not just about deprecation rank but as can be seen its original proposal it is a reason why it is not the top rank. If there are preferred statements, you can add reason for deprecated rank (P2241) to any statement that is not preferred to provide a reason why those statements are not preferred, regardless if they are of normal or deprecated rank. I personally think reason for preferred rank (P7452) ought to remove "rank" from the label so it can just provide a reason why a statement is preferred over others, regardless of the actual rank (if there are no preferred ranked statements the normal ones are clearly preferred over deprecated rank ones, etc.). In fact perhaps it would be best if we stepped away from using the same terminology as the ranks are named, e.g., maybe "reason for statement deprecation" and "reason for statement preference" would be better labels. —Uzume (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I think in the meantime reason for deprecated rank (P2241) is only for deprecated rank (see its current description). I'm not convinced that the suggested relative use of the term (and preferred) would help users. --- Jura 07:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: I do not see the word "rank" anywhere in its current English description (I did not try to grok the myriad of other languages) and the original proposal is quite clear: Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/38#P2241. —Uzume (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
        • The discussion in 2015 was somewhat short. For quite some time, there is a complex constraint [1] for that and I added it to the domain [2]. --- Jura 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
          • @Jura1: The complex constraint was added after you changed the domain. I wonder how that works when the property is used in a non-qualifier sense. It should be noted the constraints specifically allow its property scope (P5314) as main value (Q54828448) and further it is an instance of (P31) Wikidata property for properties (Q22582645) so presumably this was intended for providing a reason for an entire property to be deprecated and not just specific statements. As far as I know only statements have rankings. I do not thing you did us any service by changing the domain resulting in the complex constraint being developed by @Matěj Suchánek:. It seems you confused things more by focusing on ascribing some sort of meaning to Wikibase statement rankings. —Uzume (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
              • I fixed the domain when it was created. Anyways, let's try to stick with the original scope of this discussion: the proposal above. --- Jura 07:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Uzume: If people start using reason for deprecated rank (P2241) for statements that aren't deprecated that likely leads to increased confusion about ranks and what it means to be deprecated and should be avoided. ChristianKl❫ 10:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @ChristianKl: Perhaps (depending on ones point of view) but methinks it is more confusing to introduce another property to label deprecated statements at a normal rank as well as preferred statements at a normal rank. This proposed property could be confusingly interpreted either way. If you look at any dictionary "normal" is always a sticky abstract definition. A reason for normalcy seems even more confusing. Methinks what you are looking for is something more along the lines of "reason for historic statement" to keep people from removing/deleting statements that do not represent the current situation. I personally see this as exactly what reason for deprecated rank (P2241) was originally intended for. It is unfortunate it got boxed and conflated by the Wikibase statement ranking names. You say it might cause confusion and I won't argue that. There is plenty of room for confusion due to the naming of the Wikibase ranks. However, you will find it much harder to craft machine queries (Wikibase is all about machine readable data) for "outdated" statements since there is no single qualifier property to label them with. Methinks if anything you are creating a system where the data can be more confusingly misinterpreted. From my point of view the Wikibase statement ranks have done much damage. Instead of considering "best" statements by Wikibase rank, we should be considering "best" by qualifiers. —Uzume (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
        • @Uzume: Statements at a normal level are not deprecated. Just because Berlin has a population of 3,644,826 in 2019 doesn't mean that the statement that it had a population of 3,644,826 in 2018 is deprecated. It's still a true statement that Berlin had a population of 3,644,826 in 2018.
An outdated statement has either point in time (P585) or end time (P582) as qualifiers and you can easily query for both if you care about timing.
If you want to filter more directly you can filter for statement that have start time (P580) but no end time (P582). ChristianKl❫ 16:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I totally agree. My point is that the Wikibase statement rankings have no defined and solid meaning and frankly they shouldn't as that is what qualifiers are for. I really do not think we should have qualifiers that are trying to lock in their meaning. Just add the meaning via qualifiers to begin with. This is why I am opposed to this property proposal as it targets a property for a specific Wikibase statement ranking attempting to give the rankings some more solid meaning when the meaning should be all in the qualifiers and thus we do not need to consider even trying to assign or define meaning to rankings (they are inflexible). We would be far better off having Wikibase ranks removed (and during the interim replaced with a rank qualifier until we can manually replace them with more appropriate qualifers).
If people start using reason for deprecated rank (P2241) for statements that aren't deprecated that likely leads to increased confusion about ranks and what it means to be deprecated and should be avoided.
There is your problem right there. What does "deprecation" even mean? Dictionaries will tell you it means disapproval for something, i.e., it is the opposite of "preference" or "best". But what do any of those really mean? Well they are context dependent. If you want to know the current populate of Berlin, the population from 2018 is deprecated. If you want to know what it was in 2018, then the 2018 statements are preferred, right? So I take objection with deprecated and preferred to begin with but this is only made worse by trying to shoehorn meaning into Wikibase statement rankings. Do you want meaning controlled by the Wikibase software or by Wikidata community and the statements they curate? As soon as you attempt to assign meaning to such a field you give it power. Let's not give power to a very small and inflexible Wikibase statement ranking system and instead embrace qualifiers that we can design and assign meaning to. —Uzume (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If I want to know the current population of Berlin then I don't disapprove if someone tells me "the population from 2018 is X". It's not the answer to the question I asked but it's not a wrong answer. Deprecation is for statements that are actually wrong.
The ability to get single values to queries via wdt is quite useful and we essentially would get rid of that if we would get rid of ranks. ChristianKl❫ 18:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: If something is actually wrong it would be better to correct it or remove/delete it than mark it with some sort of deprecation. As for your other assertion about getting single values, as far as I know there is no interface that guarantees such a thing. There are things like mw.wikibase.getBestStatements that return a set of statements filtered by "best" rank. It would be easy enough to have different qualifier based filters instead. I believe something similar can be done in SPARQL queries. There is nothing wrong with having multiple statements with the same claim/property and the same rank—even if that rank is preferred or the highest rank. Different statements might be preferred for different reasons. In fact we have reason for preferred rank (P7452) for such but there again, I question its value as preference is context dependent and thus the meaning should be all in the qualifiers and how you choose to use them. Ascribing meaning to Wikibase ranks is asking for trouble since it will invariably mean one thing in one context/claim, etc. and a different thing elsewhere over and over again effectively conflating and convoluting things. —Uzume (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Uzume: Throwing away the research about how claims that serious source make are wrong is very wasteful. Let's say a date of birth (P569) claim is wrong in VIAF and we have a bot that regularly imports data from VIAF. If we just remove the data it will be readded the next time the bot runs. If we deprecate the value it doesn't get readded as normal rank and the people over at VIAF have a chance to notice that a human editor over at Wikidata found that the value is false, so that VIAF can fix their data.
wdt never returns more then one value. It just gives the truthy value. Seperately, the truthy values seem to be valuable enough that enough people download the dumb of the truthy values that WMDE regularly publishes that dumb separately from the full Wikidata data.
@ChristianKl: Yes, and that is another type of "deprecation". Just how many should be supported and will every user be schooled on them all? I agree what you are saying about tagging values from external sources that we know to be questionably incorrect is a good thing. But I think we can more flexibly do that with qualifiers rather than depending on Wikibase rankings and trying to ascribe any special meanings to such. I cannot say I have considerable experience with SPARQL query semantics but even there I question the value of assigning meaning to Wikibase statement ranks. —Uzume (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not another type of deprecation. It's the standard deprecation that one does on Wikidata when one finds a wrong claim with a serious source. ChristianKl❫ 02:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: This would seem to say otherwise: Special:Search/haswbstatement:P31=Q27949697. Despite your claim, there seem to be a large number (141 by my count) of reasons for deprecation. There is also a slightly shorter list here list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174). Quite a number of those have little to nothing to do with inaccuracies from a source. —Uzume (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The point of the rank is that a user doesn't have to know about all those possible qualifier values to use them. They would need to know more if we would get rid of ranks. ChristianKl❫ 12:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting discussion as we seem to come to different conclusions about the same question. --- Jura 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just for the scope of this discussion: I added links for "normal", "preferred", "deprecated" and "rank" to the proposal. Maybe we can discuss what "deprecation" means elsewhere --- Jura 07:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment looks like there is no consensus for this. So, I suppose one must add a "reason for preferred rank" to every preferred statement instead. --- Jura 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason we need separate properties for each rank? Couldn't we rename reason for deprecated rank (P2241) to "reason for current rank" (and then get rid of reason for preferred rank (P7452))? - Nikki (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I   Support Nikki's proposal. --Tinker Bell 23:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The point was discussed above. --- Jura 08:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So I've reviewed this proposal again (some significant time has passed) and the two opposition votes seem invalid since they misunderstand the use of the rank system. However, instead of creation I'm adding my own opposing vote, for the same point I gave above in the past: reason for normal rank seems to always boil down to "the data is valid" given that it is the default state. It seems to me this property would have a somewhat arbitrary use case since it presumably should not apply to every normal rank statement in Wikidata. Can someone give a specific use case or have I missed that? --SilentSpike (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    Have a look at the countless statements at Q155#P463. I think it nicely matches the description provided with the proposal.
    I think the same oppose argument could have been made for the qualifier in use for preferred ranks and deprecated rank. They are not always used either. --- Jura 10:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    My objection is not about whether they are always used, but whether it is appropriate to always use them. In the case you link, I think there's an argument for all of those to have "reason of preferred rank"="currently valid value" as it makes it obvious why they are preferred over the others. Setting preferred rank is not the default, thus providing an explanation is logical. Normal rank needs no explanation because it's always "the data is valid, but not preferred". SilentSpike (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    I see your point of view. In general, it may work if there is just a single preferred rank.
    "Normal rank needs no explanation", I wish that too, but I don't think most people understand it that well. The ranks we had at Q30#P463 illustrate the contrary. --- Jura 14:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  Strong oppose "Normal rank needs no explanation" I like that comment from Jura enough to end this discussion. -- ~Namita (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

inventory numberEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumeric or alphanumeric registration or inventory identifier of the subject, usually assigned by the owner, administrator, or registration authority (use this property if there is not a specific property for the concerned register or numbering system)
Representsnot found
Data typeString
Template parameternot found
Domainnot restricted
Allowed valuesnot restricted
Example 1Level crossing in Kounice (Q105848548) → P399 (related to this .ods and .pdf list, this numbering used also in the map Mapy.cz)
Example 2Candelabrum in Loretánská street (Q37290151) → 180036 (Prague streetlamp numbering system: https://skenujprahu.cz/180036)
Example 3Vertical Sculpture of Time (Q107542741) → 390008 (Prague streetlamp numbering system: https://skenujprahu.cz/390008)
Example 4Warehouse No 7 (Q12054443) → 7
Example 5transformer station in Nedvězí (Q37990504) → TS4041
Planned usenothing specific for now, but many types of subjects have their identifiers
Expected completenesscannot be complete, universal use
See alsofleet or registration number (P2802), street number (P670) conscription number (P4856), road number (P1824), route number (P1671) and many and many specific identifiers. See also Property proposal/bridge number.
  • I missed inventory number (P217). This is a very similar universal property. However, its description is centered on "collections", which evokes a museum or archive. Maybe, this property can apply also to management registers of structures, devices and similar utilitarian objects. In such a case, let this proposal be considered as a proposal to extend the existing property; then the proposed creation of a new property would not be necessary.

MotivationEdit

There are many properties for particular unique identifiers, or general types of identifiers (house numbers, fleet number, road number etc.). But however, a general property is missing for such a registration or inventory number for which there is no specific property.

This property is proposed for very wide use for identifiers and registers which have not their own specific property yet. It can apply to numbering of various collection items, structures, street furniture (notable clocks or street candelabras, public art, trees etc.), transport or infrastructure stations and devices (level crossings, distribution substations, train stations, bus stops) etc. etc. In some cases, the use of this property may be a transitional phase before a specific property is established. However, if there are a small number of items with such an identifier, establishing a specific property is unlikely or appropriate, and this universal property is an acceptable solution. ŠJů (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • to change the description and setting of inventory number (P217) to be more universal can be sufficient. --ŠJů (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • catalog code (P528) can be used for cases not covered by inventory number (P217). --- Jura 06:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: Both of them are primarily described and designed rather for some archival material, collection items or library items rather than for structures, technical devices or street furniture, or even abstract entities such as legal entities, events, places etc. inventory number (P217) and catalog code (P528) can be merged and their description adapted for more universal use, or differentiated by type in some more meaningful way - now the two properties seem a bit duplicated, and their extended uses as somewhat random. The terms "inventory" and "catalogue" are almost synonymical in their primary meaning, but there are many various types of registers, lists, collections, anthologies, almanacs, databases etc. etc. which can contain numbered items. It is advisable to cover them all with one universal property, or is it better to differentiate them into several types? The identifier assigned by the owner, administrator, operator, founder, or any registration authority has a different weight and role, than an identifier assigned by an independent researcher, etc. Are we able to find a property name that is concise and appropriate enough for all possible uses, in the full range of possibilities? --ŠJů (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Ideally, we would have a separate property for every registry. I'd say catalog code (P528) is the more general property. --- Jura 05:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: In my langue, the equivalent of the word "inventory" evokes a list of furniture (movables) maintained by the owner, administrator or operator, or the amount of stocks of some goods in stock, while "catalog" can mean rather some independent list, or an offer sheet representing types of offered things, or a list of things at the exhibition. It is possible that the two properties could be merged, as their meaning overlaps in part. However, none of them (with its current description) is now suitable for street furniture or other utility things. I would explain the difference on postage stamps: the catalog represents what types of stamps were issued, while the inventory lists specific pieces of each type and their number. I would call the keeper's or manager's register of his assets "inventory (list)" rather than "catalog". I tried to used inventory number (P217)=180035 for Candelabrum on Hradčanské náměstí (Q37290199) but the property requires collection (P195) qualifier. IMHO, we need rather some qualifiers like "numbering system", "listed in" or "listed by". It would probably be a hurry to create a separate identifier property, which can be used in maximally several dozen items here in Wikidata. --ŠJů (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Properties for legislationEdit

enacted onEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe date on which legislation became law
Representsenacted (Q101753155)
Data typePoint in time
Domainproperty
Allowed valuesdate
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → 1968-07-26
Example 2Official Languages Act (Q481372) [Canadian Act] → 1988-07-28
Example 3Patriot Act (Q221689) [US Act] → 2001-10-26
Example 4Civil Procedure Rules (Q1055840) [UK delegated legislation] → 1998-12-10
Example 5Item TBC [Irish delegated legislation] → 2021-04-15
Example 6Item TBC [UK private Act] → 1987-05-15
Planned useFor any items of legislation.
Number of IDs in sourcemillions
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsno - far too much variation in format and method of designation

Parliamentary Archives ID (United Kingdom)Edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of this item on the Parliamentary Archives website
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainproperty
Allowed values\w+
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → HL_PO_PU_1_1968_c60
Example 2Civil Procedure Rules (Q1055840) [UK delegated legislation] → HC_CL_JO_10_2636_231
Example 3Item TBC [UK private Act] → HL_PO_PB_1_1987_c1
Sourcehttps://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/
Planned useFor any items in the Parliamentary Archives.
Number of IDs in sourceunknown
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://archives.parliament.uk/collections/getrecord/GB61_$1
Robot and gadget jobsmaybe - many of the item descriptions are shortened/vague/alternatives, and some are just wrong

Parliamentary Office number (United Kingdom)Edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionreference number assigned by the Clerk of the Parliaments to original Acts of Parliament passed in a given Parliamentary session to be kept in the House of Lords Record Office (now the Parliamentary Archives)
RepresentsParliamentary Office number (Q108990292)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainproperty
Allowed values\d{1,3}
Example 1Piracy Act 1721 (Q7197656) → 40
Example 2Privilege of Parliament Act 1512 (Q16933732) → 8
Example 3Item TBC → 259
Planned usefor any Acts of Parliament passed between 1497 and 1902, for which this system is still used
Number of IDs in sourcetens of thousands - they restart from 1 each Parliamentary session, and will need to be paired with part of the series (P179)
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Robot and gadget jobsno - these are kept in two series of contemporary handwritten records kept in the Parliamentary Archives as well as being transcribed on the original Acts themselves

short titleEdit

   Withdrawn
Descriptionthe designated short title of an item of legislation
Representsshort title (Q2470803)
Data typeMonolingual text
Domainproperty
Allowed valuestext
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → Theft Act 1968
Example 2Official Languages Act (Q481372) [Canadian Act] → Official Languages Act
Example 3Patriot Act (Q221689) [US Act] → Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001
Example 4Civil Procedure Rules (Q1055840) [UK delegated legislation] → Civil Procedure Rules 1998
Example 5Item TBC [Irish delegated legislation] → Judicial Council Act 2019 (Commencement) Order 2021
Example 6Item TBC [UK private Act] → John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe (Marriage Enabling) Act 1987
Planned useFor any items of legislation that have a formally designated short title.
Number of IDs in sourcemillions
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsno - far too much variation in format and method of designation

long titleEdit

   Withdrawn
Descriptionthe designated long title of an item of legislation
Representslong title (Q105206575)
Data typeMonolingual text
Domainproperty
Allowed valuestext
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post Office Act 1953 and other enactments; and for other purposes connected therewith.
Example 2Official Languages Act (Q481372) [Canadian Act] → An Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada
Example 3Patriot Act (Q221689) [US Act] → An Act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and across the globe, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
Example 4Item TBC [UK private Act] → An Act to enable John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe to be married to each other.
Planned useFor any items of legislation that have a formally designated long title.
Number of IDs in sourcemillions
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsno - far too much variation in format

MotivationEdit

A series of properties primarily focused on UK legislation, but some have applicability in other jurisdictions. The short title is officially designated and is (usually) how most people would refer to an Act, while the long title is (technically) the full title of the Act but rarely sees much use. Neither of these are necessarily the most appropriate title for the item, however (see the Patriot Act example). The "enacted on" date is when legislation becomes law and should be fairly self-explanatory, but it should be differentiated from effective date (P7588) due to the fact that a lot of legislation does not come into effect until a designated later date (or when a specific event occurs). The Parliamentary Archives ID refers to the online database of the Parliamentary Archives, and is often the only place to locate local or private Acts (which may have little to no other online presence). Note that this system is ultimately derived from the National Archives system, so my understanding is that the URLs all contain GB61 to denote that they're at the Parliamentary Archives. Finally, the Parliamentary Office number carries significance in that it was formally designated on Acts for hundreds of years and is usually written on the Act itself, so carries authoritative weight in referencing.

One relatively minor concern that's occurred to me (in relation to data types) is where legislation is formally multilingual with no single language taking precedence (e.g. English/Welsh for Acts of Senedd Cymru or English/French for Acts in Canada). I'm not satisfied with any of the currently-possible workarounds that I can think of: "monolingual text" doesn't seem appropriate for obvious reasons, but neither does "multilingual text" given that it would not be appropriate to translate them into any further languages. Having separate properties for each language is clunky, and also causes any legislation to which this applies to be inconsistently formatted. It would obviously be inappropriate to ignore or give precedence to one or the other. The only solution I can think of is that the short title and long title properties need to be hybrids, where multiple languages can be added if and only if they are both (or all) the text of what was actually enacted. In the short-term, though, I wouldn't want this issue to hold things up. Theknightwho (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment We already have short name (P1813) which has alias "short title", that seems to be exactly what you are proposing here. official name (P1448) would probably be the appropriate property for "long title", if title (P1476) doesn't work for that. I'm not sure on "enacted on" - we already have enacted date (P7589) and effective date (P7588), would this be yet another date or could one of those suffice? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree with you that short name (P1813) is fine. official name (P1448) is a little tricky, as formally the long title is called the "title", but in practice is referred to as the "long title" in order to differentiate it from the short title. I'm inclined to agree that official name (P1448) is the most appropriate, in order to prevent confusion (and for those unusual instances where the common name is neither the short nor the long title).
In relation to "enacted on", I would be fine with modifying this proposal to rename enacted date (P7589) to "enacted on" for two reasons: in modern times, the date of assent of an Act is by definition the date on which the Act is enacted. However, enacted date (P7589) is unnecessarily restrictive as it cannot be used for secondary legislation in the UK (statutory instruments etc.) which don't involve royal assent, or for jurisdictions where assent by a head of state is not part of the process. Secondly, in the distant past, royal assent was not necessarily the last part of the process, as it was sometimes given before a Bill had passed Parliament. In those situations, the Bill wouldn't become an Act (quite literally, to be enacted) until Parliament also assented. However, for Acts to which that applies, the date of royal assent may be unknown, and it's completely irrelevant when compared to the date of enactment as that's the point at which it actually becomes law. Having it as a separate property would invariably cause confusion. effective date (P7588), on the other hand, wouldn't be appropriate for the reasons given in the original proposal. Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I added "(United Kingdom)" to the two proposed identifiers. Otherwise it might not be clear that this is for a UK institution only. BTW we had some "long title" property for Brazilian laws, not sure where it went. --- Jura 14:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have re-ordered the list to put the two withdrawn proposals (short title and long title) at the bottom. Short title can be represented as short name (P1813), and long title can be represented as official name (P1448).
  •   Support, important properties for policy.--Arbnos (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support the two identifiers. For 'enacted on', we have significant event (P793) --Tinker Bell 01:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

project ofEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionproject of creation of a certain type of thing
Representsproject (Q170584)
Data typeItem
DomainQ170584
Example 1
⟨ Aéroport du Grand Ouest (Q140205)      ⟩ project of Search ⟨ airport ⟩
Example 2
⟨ proposed airport (Q44665966)      ⟩ project of Search ⟨ airport ⟩
Example 3
Example 4
⟨ Manhattan Project (Q127050)      ⟩ project of Search ⟨ nuclear weapon ⟩

MotivationEdit

The situation is quite messy concerning the project ontology. We currently have airport projects considered as subclass of airports, for example, which makes project show up in queries. The of (P642)   qualifier or nature of statement (P5102)   are sometime used to indicate it’s a project of some kind, see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q140205&oldid=1247399168 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q44665966&oldid=1486227586#P279 .

I’d like a property to make sure we have a preferred way to model this that does not requires to exclude some results from queries.

Proposed rules associated to the creation of the property:


author  TomT0m / talk page 11:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

See also
Wikidata:Property_proposal/outcome to link the projects to the actual objects and not their types. It can occur that a project has a concrete result that is not of the same kind as the initial goal.

DiscussionEdit

  Comment Hi TomT0m! I'm gathering here that you want to distinguish between an item for a construction project, and the item for the entity it becomes at a later date, with the first being an instance of (some subclass of) "project", and the second being an instance of the type of building that the project is for? So for example we have Penn Station Access (Q16986985) vs Pennsylvania Station (Q54451), the first being a project and the second a railway station. What about using the property facet of (P1269) to link them? If there's no item yet for the planned building or structure, then create a new item (which would be an instance of whatever type of building it is). Does that make sense? ArthurPSmith (talk)
Hi Arthur ! A better thing to do would be a « outcome » property for project items, I guess. :) I’ll launch the proposal. It has the benefit that for abandoned project we can have statements like « outcome: no value Help » . author  TomT0m / talk page 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  Done
I replaced the « * » to make items with « : » because the « answer » discussion tool seem not to understand this, it does not show the « reply » button under your comment
To reply more completely, I think that actually creating an item for something that is only planned would be totally defeating the purpose of this proposal. I may understand if it’s a building in building for example, but for something that is just planned with no physical existence I don’t think it’s a good idea. It exists only in our minds … as a project. Which is why I think it’s a good idea to have a « project » item (the project, however, exists). author  TomT0m / talk page 10:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-tangible concepts and ideas do exist, and we work with them just like any other. It’s sort-of like the concept of object permanence. A “project” is less ‘real’ than even the planned airport it’s for. The term is also entirely generic, so you’d have to make an effort to add that information. We do of course have items for future events, buildings, and other things, just as we have items for past events and air-ports that no longer exist. A planned airport should have statements for date of official opening (P1619) and/or service entry (P729) with either no value Help or a future date, which you can use to exclude them in your queries.
Now it’s perfectly fine to create items specifically for a construction project if there’s some need for it, in the same way that other aspects are sometimes kept separate and other times not, like an event, the company running it, and its headquarter’s building. Karl Oblique (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What would be the P31 of these? What happens if the project is dealt with on the same item as its outcome? --- Jura 11:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for projects.--Arbnos (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

service hosted byEdit

MotivationEdit

Many nonprofit internet services share who supports hosting their service so a property would be useful to document this. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Many things (software, services, platforms, and providers themselves nowadays!) are hosted on servers, cloud, etc. maybe it makes sense to make this a broader property as simply "hosted by"? That way many overlapping uses cases like online service (Q19967801) and service on internet (Q1668024) being the traditional generic concepts, as well as cloud computing (Q483639) bringing platform as a service (Q1153767) as a resource for hosting nearly any kind of software or solution stack (Q7558983) and the many subtypes could all conceivably use a property like this, including up and coming virtual spaces upon many metaverse (Q2632041) yet to come to fruition. One day, I likely will be saying: "I own and manage 2 rooms/zones, one is hosted with ZoomWorlds and the other with MetaGlobe". --Thadguidry (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Thadguidry Yeah that's actually the original purpose of this property. It's not limited to just internet services. The limit of this to things that are *electronically* hosted. I didn't want to get it confused with "hosting a party" so that's why it's not called "hosted by". Lectrician1 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose operator (P137) can be used instead with optional object has role (P3831) to note which part of the service is operated by the organisation. Example values for object has role (P3831) would include internet hosting service (Q1210425) and DNS hosting service (Q5205812) (must be a subclass of organization (Q43229)). I'm not opposed to specific sub-properties of operator (P137) for e.g. "DNS hosting provider", "Transit provider", "CDN provider", etc but disagree with needing another generic property duplicating operator (P137). --Dhx1 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Dhx1
    I really don't like using qualifiers here or in-general because potentially creates very inconsistent schemas.
    As you might see from the examples, these services do not explicitly specify which organizations host what parts of their software. Therefore, we might not know who exactly is the DNS hoster of CDN provider. I would like those properties, however in cases like the example above, having a broadened property like what is being proposed is the best case for specifying the organizations the support electronic services. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support BeLucky (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support ~Namita (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

name in Swedish parliamentEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionname form used for people active in the Swedish parliament mostly in older days
Data typeString
Domainproperty
Example 1Sigurd Carlsson (Q5603396) → "Carlsson i Solberga"
Example 2Blenda Björck (Q4939247) → "Björck I Tomelilla"
Example 3Valdemar Berglund (Q5572503) → "Berglund i Arvidsjaur"
Sourcethe name form is shown in books like Tvåkammar-riksdagen 1867-
Planned usedisplay it in the infobox for Swedish PM people also projects like Welfare State Analytics are doing ML and NER on 3 million pages from the Swedish parliament and they need those strings.
Number of IDs in source4500
Expected completeness100%
Wikidata projectWikiProject_every_politician/Sweden (Q100741821)

MotivationEdit

As projects like Welfare State Analytics https://www.westac.se/en/ are Text Mining and Modeling Swedish Politics and doing ML and NER those text strings are important for identify the people in the Swedish Parliament mentioned in the documents. In Sweden it looks like Wikidata is the best electronic source for who has been active in the Swedish parlament so its natural that Wikidata also support those text strings --> makes NER easier and we will get good feedback from the project working with the corpus of the Swedish PM see GITHUB welfare-state-analytics/riksdagen-corpus

The name form was used for nearly every person in the older days. Today we have just found it used 2 times for 2 persons with the same name Jonas Andersson

Another advantage to have a dedicated property for this is that people changed the name used eg. Karl Björkänge (Q5578035) was during one period called Andersson i Björkänge and then changed to Andersson i Lindesberg (source) --> having a dedicated property we could add dates when used...

Salgo60 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Salgo60 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for Sweden.--Arbnos (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

process results in qualityEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionquality that this process/activity directly correlates to and produces
Representsprocess (Q3249551)
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Allowed valuesquality (Q1207505)
Example 1cooking (Q38695)cooked (Q104439289)
Example 2decentralization (Q188961)decentralized (Q110433895)
Example 3running (Q105674)fatigue (Q9690)
Example 4freezing (Q108000)frozen (Q75271124)
See also

MotivationEdit

When creating qualities, I noticed we don't have any way to relate qualities with the processes that lead to them.

We have has effect (P1542) but this is used very erroneously. For example, wheat (Q15645384) has effect (P1542) gluten-related disorder (Q1367782) and American Civil War (Q8676) has effect (P1542) Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Q175613). The property proposed seeks to be a subproperty of this specifically for process/activity:resulting-quality relationships.

An inverse property of this could be created if wanted. Please specify whether or not with your feedback.

Lectrician1 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support, an important property for Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose running to fatigue seems rather random and not precise, might as well result in "sweat" Nepalicoi (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

not compatible withEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthis work, product, object or standard cannot interact with another work, product, object or standard
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1s-boot 4.0 for the GT-I9300 (Q110800808) (The bootloader shipped on the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) ) is incompatible with the Linux kernel (Q14579) (reference: https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/BootloadersIncompatibleWithLinux#Devices-with-the-Exynos-4412, https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/06/14/9)
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useDocumenting nonfree bootloaders incompatibilities: we can already tell a that Linux kernel (Q14579) has some support for the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) through the exynos4412-i9300.dts (Q90612899) device tree (Q16960371) but we can't tell that the stock bootloader can't boot Linux because it's incompatible with it. Since it's not up to Linux to fix it, and that that bootloader can only be fixed by Samsung (it can't be modified by users as it is signed) and that's extremely unlikely to happen (the Galaxy SIII is not sold new anymore since many years now) we need a way to express the incompatibility to avoid users of Wikidata be misslead into thinking that one can simply boot an official Linux kernel and expect it to work on that smartphone.
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsocompatible with (P8956), platform (P400), operating system (P306), readable file format (P1072), writable file format (P1073), intended public (P2360)

MotivationEdit

I already started documenting hardware and software compatibilities with compatible with (P8956), but we also need the inverse property (not compatible with) to handle some problematic situations.

For instance there is some support for the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) in the Linux kernel (Q14579) through the exynos4412-i9300.dts (Q90612899) and various drivers to support its hardware, but users can't boot the Linux kernel (Q14579) on that smartphone.

This is because this smartphone is shipped with a boot loader (Q836795) that is incompatible with the Linux kernel (Q14579). And this bootloader can't be modified by users because the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) only runs software signed by Samsung at boot. So if users were to modify that bootloader, this device won't boot. And the Linux kernel (Q14579) can't accept patches to add support for this bootloader because ARM bootloaders are expected to be compatible with a booting standards and this one isn't.

More generally it could be used to express incompatibilities that can't be fixed, for instance some hardware chip that is incompatible with a protocol, or for cases where users would expect hardware or software to be compatible with other hardware and software but where it is not compatible (due to hardware limitations for instance).

GNUtoo (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

previous property definitionEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionrevid of property page before the property's format was change. Qualify with "end date" (P582) to indicate the date
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainexternal-id properties
Allowed values\d
Example 1SBN author ID (P396)1572819376
qualified with end time (P582)=??
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=$1
Distinct-values constraintyes

MotivationEdit

Depending on the outcome of Property_talk:P396#Discussion_about_replacing_values_with_a_new_format_or_scheme and similar discussions, we may want to provide a way to versionize property definitions to ensure users can retrieve previous ones. The presence of the property may also allow to determine that they have changed. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 12:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

ChristianKl
ArthurPSmith
d1g
JakobVoss
Jura
Jsamwrites
MisterSynergy
Salgo60
Harshrathod50
Wildly boy
ZI Jony
Ederporto
99of9
Danrok
Eihel
Emw
Fralambert
GZWDer
Ivan A. Krestinin
Jonathan Groß
Joshbaumgartner
Kolja21
Kristbaum
MSGJ
Mattflaschen
MichaelSchoenitzer
Nightwish62
Pablo Busatto
Paperoastro
PinkAmpersand
Srittau
Thierry Caro
Tobias1984
Vennor
Yellowcard
Ivanhercaz
Tinker Bell
Bodhisattwa
Iwan.Aucamp
Cunme
NAH
Gnoeee
The-erinaceous-one
-akko
Mathieu Kappler
Dhx1
Lectrician1
Daniel Mietchen
  Notified participants of WikiProject Properties --- Jura 12:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Would this be useful for any property whose scope is broadened, constraints changed significantly, etc.? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Referencing the "oldid" in some way does sound useful, but is this the right way to model it? Perhaps the date should be foremost - property definition changed on this date, and then link with a generic revision id property as a qualifier? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I suppose it's a matter of POV. I had definition in mind. In both cases, revid can be used (e.g.) in wikibase-cli (Q87194660) to load it. A missing date wouldn't matter that much, but the date only is harder to use. --- Jura 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

quality has stateEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionspecific state of a quality. For example, "clean" is a state of the quality "cleanliness"
Data typeItem
Domainquality (Q1207505)
Allowed valuesstate (Q3505845)
Example 1magnitude (Q2091629)maximum (Q10578722), minimum (Q10585806)
Example 2cleanliness (Q692096)clean (Q107998880), dirty (Q107998873)
Example 3orderliness (Q107273991)order (Q12893838), chaos (Q1787424)

MotivationEdit

We do not have a way to relate qualities that can have a range of states with the common states that are possible with them. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment While I can see the issue here, do you have a good guess as to how many statements this would actually be relevant or useful for? And I wonder if the relation would be better in the other direction anyway. And maybe facet of (P1269) suffices for that (not that it's been used that way so far)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for connectivity.--Arbnos (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

local education levelEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptioneducational level expected for this local curriculum or education-related program
Data typeItem
Domaincurriculum, student competition, or government education-related program
Example 1Ghana National Science and Maths Quiz (Q16733581) → senior high school
Example 2Nation Builders Corps (NABCO) (Q59649307) → tertiary
Example 3MISSING
Planned useThis property will get contributors to indicate the usefulness of a topic or attribute certain activities and content to an item based on the local education level of the country or state the various local education levels that the content is relevant to. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out how it is used in the test environment Q224504.

MotivationEdit

Sometimes we want to indicate if an item, especially educational content are useful to some local educational level. With this property we will be able to list one or multiple local educational levels. The emphasis is on the local because, the general identification of education level, used in educational stage (Q18189) and for example high school education (Q14623204), does not use the name at the local level, instead, the general term for education levels. It is high time, we also tailored and identified content, especially education content, that is relevant to a country using the local name.

In the examples, under Ghana Education Service (Q30263788) the local education level will use the local names used to identify the local education levels which are lower primary level (key phase 2), upper primary level(key phase 3) junior high school (key phase 4), senior high school (key phase 5) and tertiary. Ghana National Science and Maths Quiz (Q16733581) is national quiz that is only targeted at senior high school students. Nation Builders Corps (NABCO) (Q59649307) is a program that is for tertiary students.

Andrews Lartey (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Please explain further, I don't understand this proposal at all. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith Does this update provide clarity now? I will look forward to your feedback. Thank you. Andrews Lartey (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Andrews Lartey: Not really, no. educational stage (Q18189) is a general class that includes all possible educational stages, so adding this property as a statement on that item would not make sense to me at all. Your property label says "local", so presumably you are trying to add it as a statement on specific educational institutions, or specific programs, that are located in particular states or countries for which "local" would make sense. It makes no sense for this proposed property to be applied to a general class. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    In the new example that I have stated, senior high school is the local name given to Upper Secondary Education (based on ISCED 2011 education scale). The Ghana National Science and Maths Quiz is a national program, local to Ghana, that is for only the senior high school level. Andrews Lartey (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, I think I get the idea, and the example on test.wikidata.org makes sense to me, and I don't think we have a property that covers this right now, so yes we should add this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
      Support Agree with @ArthurPSmith Andrawaag (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

hours per weekEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to show the total number of hours per week.
Data typeQuantity
Domainquantity
Example 1applied mathematics (Q33521) → 15
Example 2geography (Q1071) → 12
Example 3cycling (Q53121) → 30
Example 4meditation (Q108458) → 18
Planned useTo emphasize the hours spent per week. Just using hours or duration (P2047) does not give clarity to whether it is per day, per week or month or per year. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

This shows a specific measure of time and its occurrence, hours per week. duration (P2047) really works for showing the duration but can get confusing. The user cannot express the occurrence of the activity using just duration (P2047). In this case, this property will allow one to state, the number of hours per week an activity happens for or should happen for and its occurrence.

In the examples, mathematics is taught or studied for 15 hours per week (relative). Cycling could be 30 hours per week.

Andrews Lartey (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment Wouldn't duration (P2047) be sufficient? Abbe98 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

duration (P2047) would be limiting. It does not state the occurrence. This property specifies the occurrence using the 'per week' phrase. Thank you for the comment. It is great. Andrews Lartey (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if a qualifier could do the trick instead to ensure the modeling works for more cases. For your use case one could for example consider curriculums that are based around the total number of hour rather than hours per week(like in Scandinavia). Abbe98 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A qualifier could do the trick. It is worth considering how adding this will change the structure of the model. Please let me know if you have further recommendations whiles I provide update on the changes to the model and its feasibility soon. Andrews Lartey (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

education levelEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThis combines ISCED education level equivalence with the local education level name. This is different from educational stage (Q18189) because it uses the ISCED Level standards.
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1secondary school (Q159334) → ISCED Level 03
Example 2middle school (Q149566) → ISCED Level 02
Example 3MISSING
Planned useWith this the user or machine should get values for both the education level of the subject at the ISCED level and local education level. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

Curriculum standards and their interpretation for educational levels vary from region to region. This property combines the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) with the local education level.

Andrews Lartey (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

The relationship should be expressed the other way around. Lectrician1 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

When the relationship is expressed the other way round, the meaning will change. The use of this property expresses that, per the definition of the education level item there is an equivalent ISCED Level. Andrews Lartey (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

time allocationEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThis property combines(not add) the hours per week and sessions per week values as an indicator of the time committed to the subject.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1teachers' workload (Q628539) → hours per week, sessions per week → 10,5
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useKnowing the time allocation of a subject will inform experts, advisors, and other stakeholders on the impacts and outcomes of the subject. This will also allow other educators and education systems to perform comparative analysis. The time allocation combines the hours per week and sessions per week in order to have a snapshot of the efforts of educators.

MotivationEdit

Time allocation will serve as an indicator for the hours per week and sessions per week for teaching the subject.

Visit the data model document WD4E Data Model Document v1.0 to understand the data model and why we are requesting for these properties.Andrews Lartey (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

grading systemEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe grading system.
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1mathematics (Q395)WASSCE (Q3308424)
Example 2literature (Q8242)GCE Advanced Level (Q379609)
Example 3MISSING
SourceWikipedia list article
Planned useA reference to a grading system. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q224504.

MotivationEdit

An indicator of the grading system of a country.Each country follows a specific grading system. This property is needed to differentiate between different grading systems. Grading System By Country Andrews Lartey (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I think the relationship should probably be expressed the other way around. For example: WASSCE (Q3308424) -> is a grading system for -> mathematics (Q395). Lectrician1 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback. However, per the guidelines for adding examples to the property requests, it states to use ITEM -> value. Hence, the reason for using this format. So the example is reading: the subject mathematics (Q395) has a grading system WASSCE (Q3308424). The reason is, a particular subject may have one or several grading systems. Per the model that I am working with found here, the grading system (WASSCE) is a property of the Item (Ghana National Curriculum for Senior High School). The inverse is also possible where WASSCE (Q3308424) is the grading system for several subjects - but not for this use case. Andrews Lartey (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

gradeEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe level a student has reached in their academic pursuit. For example, 3rd grade.
Data typeString
Domainproperty
Example 1Basic Algebra (volume II) (Q18517603) → First Year Graduate
Example 2AP Capstone (Q16191123) → Grade 12
Example 3MISSING
Planned useRead more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q224561.

MotivationEdit

Subjects, contents, pictures, can be associated with specific grade levels.

Andrews Lartey (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment are the examples correct? educational year (Q10291405) is a generic class used by more specific educational years... Abbe98 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt. I have corrected them now. Andrews Lartey (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Grades at which people take courses vary WIDELY among schools, districts, programs, and universities. I'm not sure where you're getting this data that these courses are taken specifically during these grades... Lectrician1 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your point is factual. This property will allow one to state the expected grade for which the subject or content is suited for per the standard set by the governing body that developed the content. Hence, the usage of this property should be in consultation with the recommendation of the governing body that set the standards. For example, with AP Capstone, the program is targeted at student who are motivated and prepared for college-level coursework; in this case technically Grade 11 and 12 students are. There may be other regions who will also use the ISCED 2011 standards to determine what courses are meant for what grade level. Andrews Lartey (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

ISCED AttainmentEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific of the ISCED Attainment model. Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1primary education in country or region (Q64808627) → 1
Example 2secondary education in country or region (Q64807904) → 2
Example 3higher education in country or region (Q64805944) → 3
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0.Check out how it is used in the test environment Q224201.

MotivationEdit

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationist can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes.

Usually educationist are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example, the primary education in a country or region under ISCED Attainment is 1 (Primary Education) which can belong to a sub category of 100(Including recognised successful completion of a lower secondary programme insufficient for level completion or partial level completion). The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document

Andrews Lartey (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ISCED category orientationEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED category orientation code and definition.Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1primary education in country or region (Q64808627) → 24
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0.Check out how it is used in the test environment Q224201.

MotivationEdit

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationist can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes.

Usually educationist are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example, the primary education in a country or region under ISCED category orientation is 24 (lower secondary general education) which can belong to various sub categories such as 241 (Insufficient for level completion or partial level completion, without direct access to upper secondary education), 242(Sufficient for partial level completion, without direct access to upper secondary education), etc. For more information about ISCED check this document Andrews Lartey (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Please look at other property proposals for what your examples should look like. This doesn't work, and it's not clear what you're proposing without good examples. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. The examples should be clear now. Andrews Lartey (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

ISCED Broad FieldEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED broad field. It uses the code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1journalism (Q11030) → Social Sciences, Journalism and Information
Example 2physical sciences (Q14632398) → Natural Sciences, mathematics and statistics
Example 3accounting (Q4116214) → Business, Administration and Law
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0

MotivationEdit

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationist can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes.

Usually educationist are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example,accounting (Q4116214) is categorized in ISCED Broad Field as Business, Administration and Law. The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document

Andrews Lartey (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ISCED Narrow FieldEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED standards under Narrow Field. Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1economics (Q12882237) → Social and Behavioural Sciences
Example 2journalism (Q11030) → Journalism and Information
Example 3accounting (Q4116214) → Business and Administration
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0.

MotivationEdit

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationist can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes.

Usually educationist are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example, the academic discipline economics (Q12882237) is identified as Social and Behavioural Science under the ISCED Narrow field. The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document

Andrews Lartey (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ISCED Detailed FieldEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED standards under Detailed Field. Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1education (Q8434) → Education Science
Example 2physical sciences (Q14632398) → Earth Sciences
Example 3engineering (Q11023) → Electronics and Automation
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0

MotivationEdit

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationist can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes.

Usually educationist are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example, engineering (Q11023) as a broad field has Electronics and Automation as the ISCED Detailed Field. The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document

Andrews Lartey (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

epigraphy identifierEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionSpecialized thesaurus on Greek and Latin epigraphy in the Near East
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainepigraphy (Q181260)
Allowed values[0-9A-Za-z]{0,1}crt[0-9A-Za-z]{10}
Example 1pebble (Q14673)pcrtiFP3n4F6SP
Example 2slate (Q207079)pcrtpkSqdyJRIB
Example 3basalt (Q43338)pcrtOQccBNS7B1
Sourcehttps://ark.mom.fr/ark:/76609/pcrtiFP3n4F6SP
Formatter URLhttps://ark.mom.fr/ark:/76609/$1/

MotivationEdit

Miled.rousset (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Le thésaurus Epigraphie constitue un réservoir de mots clés très riche. Il est utilisé dans l'indexation de corpus et également dans l'édition numérique. Son intégration à Wikidata permet de l'aligner avec les autres catalogues ou thésaurus et aussi le proposer à d'autres réseaux de s'aligner avec.

DiscussionEdit

Jura
Epìdosis
B20180
llywrch
Jahl de Vautban
Alexmar983
*Treker
Mathieu Kappler
Tolanor
  Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome Epìdosis B20180 Geraki Azertus Alexander Doria Shisma Sp!ros Marcus Cyron Marsupium (observing member) Mrakia Alexmar983 DerHexer Lykos EncycloPetey Jahl de Vautban JBradyK Mathieu Kappler   Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece (we badly need a Project Epigraphy btw) --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  •   Comment while interesting the proposal seems a bit rushed ; first example links to an equivalent of Q56316368 instead of pebble (Q14673). Could we have other examples for e.g. cities or typology? I'd also like to have a more specific name for the property, perhaps Opentheso Epigraphy ID or Epigraphy Opentheso ID. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment From the examples, I cannot see what this property will be used for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • ...

competencyEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionStates the competency
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier
Example 1data scientist (Q29169143)problem solving (Q730920)
Example 2journalism (Q11030)critical thinking (Q843894)
Example 3art (Q735)creativity (Q170658)
Planned useA reference to the expected competency. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

Some activities, content, job, require some competencies. This property will allow you to state them.

In the example, a data scientist (Q29169143) is required to have problem solving (Q730920) competencies. Andrews Lartey (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • @Andrews Lartey: You have proposed many properties recently but in none of them so far are the examples demonstrated properly. For this one, for example, you should find an existing Wikidata item (or propose a new one) that is the subject for each example - presumably it should be some sort of curriculum item since that is what you have been describing. With a clearer illustration it will be possible for others to evaluate your proposals, otherwise it is very unclear what you are trying to do here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for this feedback. I am working on it and I should be done with them soon. Your feedbacks are really helping me here. Andrews Lartey (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Commentthe description for this should be more specific / clearer. This meaning of the term has nothing to do with competence (Q5156288) for example. --Middle river exports (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

sessions per weekEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionQualifier to set the number of sessions allocated per week.
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier
Example 1applied mathematics (Q33521) → 4
Example 2geography (Q1071) → 3
Example 3cycling (Q53121) → 2
Example 4meditation (Q108458) → 6
Planned useTo show the frequency of a session per week. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

This shows a specific measure of session and its occurrence, sessions per week. duration (P2047) really works for showing the sessions but can get confusing. The user cannot express the occurrence of the activity using just duration (P2047). In this case, this property will allow one to state, the number of sessions per week an activity happens for or should happen for and its occurrence.

In the examples, applied mathematics has 4 sessions per week(relative) in a school timetable. Cycling could be 2 sessions per week. Andrews Lartey (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Indiana State Historical Marker Program numeric IDEdit

   Under discussion
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaincommemorative plaque (Q721747) or subclass
Allowed valuesformat of 21.1966.1 with exception for 02.19??.?, 10.194?.1, 24.19??.?, 71.19??.?, 88.19??.?, and K.Y.1963
Example 1Bailly Homestead (Q111442474) find-historical-markers-by-county/indiana-historical-markers-by-county/bailly-homestead → 64.1949.1
Example 2Fort Ouiatenon (Q111442456) fort-ouiatenon → 79.1998.2
Example 3Maj Gen Ambrose E Burnside 1824-1881 (Q111442451) maj-gen-ambrose-e-burnside-1824-1881 → 81.1963.1
Example 4battle-of-perryville → K.Y.1963
Example 5whitewater-canal → 24.19??.?
Example 6clarksville → 10.194?.1
Sourcehttps://www.in.gov/history/state-historical-markers/find-a-marker/find-historical-markers-by-county/indiana-historical-markers-by-county/
Planned useAdd to Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546) as part of creation of commemorative plaques.
Number of IDs in sourceequal to number Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546) IDs
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes

MotivationEdit

Per the proposal for Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546) ideally the official ID not the URL would be used to identify the markers. Given the ID is not in the URL, but is the most reliable ID of identifying the marker if the URL changes. I'm proposing the use of this numeric ID property to be a required qualifier with any use of Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546). There is no current formatter URL which is the reason the string not numeric value is the ID currently used via P9546. Wolfgang8741 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support --Trade (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

has groupEdit

MotivationEdit

I would like to use this to model musical unit group (Q18444336) as subsidiary (P355) which is currently used and is not an appropriate property.

I would also like to use this to model populations.

This will be a subproperty of (P1647) has part or parts (P527) and a superproperty of subsidiary (P355).

Lectrician1 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

It is somewhat unclear what this is for to me. I read "group some of this group's parts are part of" several times before I understood what you are trying to do. The label is a bit too vague—it sounds more like "belongs to group," but it seems you really want something like "has part which is a group". Is there some reason a value that is a subgroup cannot already be used in has part or parts (P527), though? Dominic (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic I'd particularly like this for musical unit groups because usually has part or parts (P527) is used for listing the members of a group and I don't want to mix the members with the unit groups. For example, see how https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28025953#P527 stores the members of the group and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28025953#P355 stores the unit groups the members are part of (which I want to move to this proposed property). I don't want to mix those things. Separating them will also make querying more accurate. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I don’t fully get it either.
For example in the third example, has part or parts (P527) should be typically used and I don’t understand why it should not be. Everything is made of other things, almost, so everything is a « group » of other things.
I think you imply that every group has a « type », for example a group of person is made of persons, and « subgroups » are parts of this things with the same type ? For example you’d want a property for the case where the group has a « person » part, and a property for the case where the part is itself a group of person ?
(Ironically, this is a very similar structure of instance of (P31) / subclass of (P279) that if I remember correctly you’d like to suppress)
If that is correct, I think the assumption is false for example for the third example. This is a body part made of other body parts, we don’t really know which kind of body parts it is. Is it supposed to be a group of bones or something like a more generic « body parts » which can be anything ? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@TomT0m
> For example in the third example, has part or parts (P527) should be typically used and I don’t understand why it should not be.
Because has part or parts (P527) should be vertebra (Q180323) as that those are one of the "main components" along with the sacrum (Q233316) and coccyx (Q193176). Thoracic spine (Q994527), lumbar spine (Q66569716), cervical spine (Q1572320) are clearly the "groups" of the spine. Just look at the diagram linked on the item.
> Everything is made of other things, almost, so everything is a « group » of other things.
Yes, but where groups are specifically defined like musical unit groups, populations grouped in a census, or segment groups of a spine - having a property like this makes sense.
> that if I remember correctly you’d like to suppress
I don't anymore.
> we don’t really know which kind of body parts it is
That's okay. We don't need to know what kind of body part it is. We just need to know that it is a group, regardless if it has parts of the same type or not.
Do you not believe thoracic spine is a group? Lectrician1 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

CrystalLemonade Xia Redalert2fan Baji Beetricks Lectrician1 Demss22 Daniel Mietchen CMQW EN-Jungwon   Notified participants of WikiProject Korean Entertainment Lectrician1 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  •   Support, an important property for connectivity.--Arbnos (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon @ReVeluv02 Consider supporting this? It's a property for KPOP subunits. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support --EN-Jungwon 06:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose part of (P361) seems sufficient. I don't think has part or parts (P527) and subsidiary (P355) are good examples to follow. They often lead to large numbers of statements on a single item, duplication of data and inconsistent data. - Nikki (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Nikki. Mahir256 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yarus feed IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionидентификатор новостного агрегатора в ЯRUS (ru) – (Please translate this into English.)
RepresentsYarus (Q111531963)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainmass media (Q11033)
Allowed units[0-9]/+
Example 1RIA Novosti (Q821172)280
Example 2lenta.ru (Q658909)761
Example 3Obshchenatsional'noe Televidenie (Q2659133)22642
Sourcehttps://yarus.ru
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usefor usage in stated in (P248) and for Template:Authority control (Q3907614)
Number of IDs in sourceunknown
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://yarus.ru/feed/$1
Robot and gadget jobsYes, it would be great to have a separate mix'n'match catalog.
See alsoVK ID (P3185), Odnoklassniki ID (P5163), My World@Mail.Ru ID (P10558)
Applicable "stated in"-valueYarus (Q111531963)
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Wikidata projectRussia

MotivationEdit

Yarus is one of the newest Russian social networks, which was launched in 2021. Over the past 1.5 months, she has gained even more popularity due to the blocking of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram in Russia. In addition to the Russian media, Belarusian and Kazakh media also have a news aggregator. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Unique image of unicode charEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionImage of a visible unicode char in SVG format to be showed on wiktionaries (lemma pages for single unicode chars) or wikipedias (article pages for single unicode chars) beside the char as rendered by the OS and browser (with risk for "unkonwn"), see sv.wiktionary.org
Representsnone
Data typeCommons media file
Template parameterno parameter yet, usable for boxes like en.wikipedia.org or eo.wiktionary.org
Domaininstances of Unicode character (Q29654788)
Allowed valuesfilename available on commons with extension ".svg"
Allowed unitsN/A
Example 1exclamation mark (Q166764) -> "Bang.svg"
Example 2𞊬 (Q109636842) -> "TOTO LETTER BREATHY AE.svg"
Example 3 
SourceN/A
Planned usesee description above
Robot and gadget jobsbot should add this for all unicode chars (instances of Unicode character (Q29654788)) where available, many images here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Ekirahardian&limit=500&target=Ekirahardian
See alsoUnicode character name (P9382)
Single-value constraintyes

MotivationEdit

Wikidata:Project_chat#Global_unicode_attack Taylor 49 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment @Multichill There is a reason why I propose a new property different from image (P18): the new one is restricted to one value, and also SVG file format only. Taylor 49 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
That's what your proposing, not why you are proposing this. On exclamation mark (Q166764) seems to work now. Why change it? Multichill (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I understand that there's a problem of mixing of different styles but can't this just be solved by using image (P18) with qualifiers such as typeface/font used (P2739) and filtering statements by their file extension in Lua? --Nw520 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  Comment @Nw520 @Multichill There can be multiple images such as here tilde (Q11167) or junk images such as here @ (Q10714) or here (Q3594829). It's easy to filter by extension, but difficult to impossible to analyze content. Thus, the easiest solution is a new property restricting to one value, and explicitly intended as "unique image of unicode char" rather than "char in any context" that generic image (P18) is for. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Consistent use of a qualifier, as suggested, would enable analysis of content. So still unclear why a distinct property is required. If there are advantages, what are they? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon What qualifier would you suggest?
The advantages or differences:
  • P18 allows multiple images, this would allow only one
  • P18 allows all formats, this would allow only SVG
  • P18 is for "anything that makes the subject understandable" and context is allowed (char on a stamp for example), whereas this would be intended for the bare char (on white and transparent background) and nothing else, preferably in a further standadized form (see Wikidata:Project_chat#Global_unicode_attack). The scope is different, or at least substantially narrower.
You can always consider a property as redudant, for example number of cylinders (P1100) can be replaced by has part(s) of the class (P2670) with the qualifier quantity (P1114).
Taylor 49 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Switched from oppose to neutral. I am still not happy with how narrow the proposed property's domain would be (many other concepts could benefit from an image property that is restricted to a digital / not photographed representation, e.g. street signs, military symbols, etc…) and think that restricting it to one specific file extension (what if no SVG is available?) and limiting it to only one statement (what if there are multiple styles available?) is problematic. --Nw520 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  Comment Like Nw520 I also think it's preferrable with properties with a wide scope plus a qualifier over creating new properties. Here's a preliminary suggestion for P18 qualifier: X image (P18) Y / has quality (P1552) standardized (Q105223943) alternatively X image (P18) Y / object has role (P3831) standardized (Q105223943). This is sufficient to solve the problem of distinguishing a new standardized picture from old pictures. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
> what if no SVG is available?
Create it, until then, no uniqe image is available (you can still use P18).
> what if there are multiple styles available?
Pick the most typical one (not italic, not outline, ...), if several are best, pick randomly among them.
> many other concepts could benefit
True (maybe not many, but at least some other concepts). If someone wants to propose a property "unique naked image of sign, char, symbol in SVG format" with a bit wider domain, then we can discard this proposal in favor of that one. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose I don't think this would make sense as a property. Different projects may prefer different styles (e.g. serif vs sans serif), so it shouldn't be limited to one value. Sometimes there isn't an SVG image available, so it shouldn't be limited to SVGs. Most of the time it would be no different from the image (P18) statement. It would be useful to be able to find images following a consistent style, but that includes more than just Unicode characters (e.g. maps) and there's no limit on how many styles there can be, so I think the only sensible approach would be to use qualifiers. There are some potentially useful qualifiers already, like script style (P9302), typeface/font used (P2739) and for color scheme (P8798), but we would probably need a new one (something like "image scheme", maybe). - Nikki (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

construction startEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiondate that a construction project started
Representsconstruction (Q385378)
Data typePoint in time
Example 110 Hudson Yards (Q15264124) → August 2013
Example 2Eiffel Tower (Q243) → 28 January 1887
Example 3Atomium (Q180901) → March 1956
Example 4Aswan Dam (Q38891) → 9 January 1960
Planned useAdding construction start to different buildings
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoProperty proposal/Generic#construction end
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Proposed byJoeykentin (talk)

MotivationEdit

Now the only way to and the construction time is to add a significant event property and add construction with the a start time and end time qualifiers.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeykentin (talk • contribs) at 10:51, April 17, 2022‎ (UTC).

DiscussionEdit

  • @Joeykentin: What is wrong with the current approach?   Oppose pending response. Multichill (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Multichill. In my opinion, the current way is very flexible. --Tinker Bell 16:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment Kindly give us a little explanation on it how we can do that .... It will help us understand the situation here. BeLucky (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I've answered on the P571 discussion. --Tinker Bell 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like there has been a discussion on the same in past with no result in last. Here is the link to the English Translation of the original discussion (Property talk:P571#Qualifiers "start date" and "end date" for this property). - BeLucky (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Lectrician1 is fixing the same here is the discussion: Property talk:P571#1 word inception for 58 different Words. @Joeykentin: @Multichill: @Tinker Bell: --BeLucky (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support "inception" can mean when construction starts, when the building is first proposed, when the building opens, etc. We need specific properties like this in order to clear up this possible conflation. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
      Comment Here I agree with @Lectrician1 .... we could use these properties (construction started & construction ended) to be more specific to somethings and not burdening the significant event (P793) for everything and inception (P571) is already out of the question here. BeLucky (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment not sure to understand the problem, what is wrong with the current situation and how having more properties would solve anything ; and clearly one shouldn't use linguistic (especially not in only one language) to define a property (linguistic could be used to fix the label tho). And a property can always be express by multiples words (and if "construction start" is created it will also have multiple alias). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Lectrician1 @Joeykentin looks like @VIGNERON got too much caught up with the word "linguistic" .... He looks very offended by it. Cheers. -- BeLucky (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    The thing is inception can mean several things like when a project was started (so not the construction but the planning and stuff like that) and the construction. They are totally different things yet they both can be represented by inception Jhowie Nitnek 18:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Joeykentin @Lectrician1 @MasterRus21thCentury & @VIGNERON @Multichill @Tinker Bell Guys we need to agree or disagree on one point that inception/date founded/date formed/creation date/date of establishment/date commenced/inititated/introduced etc can be same/similar/loosely related but any of them can't be construction or incorporation. -- BeLucky (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support ~Namita (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support BeLucky (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no virtue in speciating inception date for each special case someone thinks of - start of constrution, date of incorporation, whataver you come up with next. It's easily possible to represent the meaning of a P571 value by qualifying the statement with e.g. object has role (P3831) taking an appropriate value; and to have multiple qualified P571 statements for any number of inception dates in an item. It's easily possible to represent the construction period - which require an end date conspicuously but puzzlingly absent from this proposal - using described at URL (P973) with start & end dates. The clear risk is that we merely move from supposed ambiguity about a single property, to ambiguity and confusion attaching to & between multiple speciated incept properties ... meanwhile, arguably, degrading ease of reporting by requiring report writers to understand that this sort of incept data is found over here, that sort of incept data is found over there; and again arguably degrading the contributor UI insofar as the use now has to choose from a deck of date properties rather than use the single property. And then; for how many occasions will inception and construction start meaningfully differ? And for how many of these cases will there be a robust source of data? To my mind, whilst I see the superficial attraction of more & more detailed properties, my experience of RDF leads me to the view that more & more tends to add all sorts of complexity and confusion without usefully solving any real problem, and instead I'd favour a better & better approach in which we use a using a simple deck of properties and properly qualify statements to convey meaning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Tagishsimon Nobody wants to add qualifiers for a relationship as common as this one. It makes sense to have a property. Lectrician1 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Lectrician1 All I can see is .... wikidata is being held back by few conservative people who held back by some self-imposed beliefs about wikidata not even knowing what is wikidata in first place ... It's common drawback of any open project with public contribution where anyone with any background and from anywhere can come in and edit without fully understanding the project at large and sometimes these users even reaches to higher levels without any hurdles with time. - BeLucky (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    If you mean to imply that Tagishsimon is "holding back Wikidata... not even knowing what is Wikidata" and "without fully understanding the project", you might want to learn more of what you're talking about before putting fingers to keyboard. And if you don't mean that, you need to be more clear about what you do mean. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose keeping the timeline in one place with a series of significant events makes for easier interrogation, especially for buildings with multiple phases. Vicarage (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Vicarage Construction is not at all related to inception. This term (construction start) was there in inception (P571) and has been removed from inception (P571) and now proposed here as separate property. And for lots and lots of items out there construction is more then significant event so it has been proposed here as separate property. - BeLucky (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I work a lot with building items and to be honest, the current usage of inception (P571) on these items is simply mess, as it is frequently used for both start of construction and completition/opening. It is appropriate to distinguish between the two and thus have more specific property.--Jklamo (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      Comment @Jklamo Thank you for your support. Here is the Property proposal for Construction End: Wikidata:Property_proposal/construction_end - BeLucky (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the above. Use "inception". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

construction endEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiondate that a construction project ended
Representsconstruction (Q385378)
Data typePoint in time
Example 110 Hudson Yards (Q15264124) → 31 May 2016
Example 2Eiffel Tower (Q243) → 15 March 1889
Example 3Atomium (Q180901) → 1958
Example 4Aswan Dam (Q38891) → 21 July 1970
Planned useAdding construction start to different buildings
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoProperty proposal/Generic#construction start
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Proposed byJoeykentin (talk)

MotivationEdit

Now the only way to and the construction time is to add a significant event property and add construction with the a start time and end time qualifiers.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeykentin (talk • contribs) at 11:00, April 17, 2022‎ (UTC).

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support, an important property for construction.--Arbnos (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose what's wrong with the current way? --Tinker Bell 16:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
      Comment Kindly let us know the current way to help us understand the situation here. BeLucky (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Better if renamed to construction ended. BeLucky (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment see Wikidata:Property proposal/construction start (since they go together, the two proposals should be on the same page to facilitate the discussion by the way). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support ~Namita (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose should be a qualifier of significant event if at all so the timeline is self-contained, and the next significant event implies the end of a previous phase. Clutter to say a building construction ended on 31 March, and it was opened on 1 April. Vicarage (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

TamTam IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for an account on TamTam
RepresentsTamTam (Q51879289)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), organization (Q43229)
Example 1Petersburg – Channel 5 (Q7220288)tv5ru
Example 2Q111728288AgnMoskva
Example 3Russia-1 (Q211511)tvrussia1
Sourcehttps://tamtam.chat
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usefor usage in stated in (P248) and for Template:Authority control (Q3907614)
Number of IDs in sourceunknown
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://tamtam.chat/$1
Robot and gadget jobsMix'x'match
See alsoTelegram username (P3789), ICQ user ID (P10477)
Applicable "stated in"-valueTamTam (Q51879289)
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Wikidata projectRussia

MotivationEdit

The TamTam messenger was launched five years ago - in May 2017. In terms of its functionality, it is the Russian analogue of the Telegram messenger, which was already blocked by Roskomnadzor at that time. In 2018, its promotion was suspended so as not to be associated with the persecution of Telegram users in Russia. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

TVG´s Children Television Series identifierEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifier for the corresponding series on the TVG website
RepresentsTVG Programme ID (Q112073162)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values[a-z0-9]
Example 1Princesse Shéhérazade (Q3403482)princesa-sheherazade
Example 2Pippi Longstocking (Q941053)pippi-mediaslongas
Example 3Nintama Rantarō (Q713975)rantaro-o-ninja-pequeno
Sourcehttps://www.crtvg.es/infantil/programas
Planned useExternal links/reference/authority control templates in gl.wiki (for original and translated) titles in Galician language and reference use in Wikidata
Number of IDs in source56
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttp://www.crtvg.es/infantil/programas/$1
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintno

MotivationEdit

Identifier for a programme in TVG webpage, maintained by CRTVG, which contains info for some children series that have been translated from another language to Galician Breogan2008 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ECLI court codeEdit

   Under discussion
Representscourt (Q41487)
Data typeString
Allowed values[A-Z][A-Z0-9]{0,6}
Example 1Helsinki Administrative Court -> HELHAO
Example 2European Union Court of Justice -> C
Example 3Stuttgart Regional Court -> LGSTUTT
Example 4German Federal Constitutional Court -> BVerfG
Planned useAdd courts and ECLI court IDs as enumerated here: https://e-justice.europa.eu/175/EN/european_case_law_identifier_ecli
Robot and gadget jobsSadly, the EU does not require its system-using members to submit ECLI codes to a central database; each participating nation's coordinator maintains an unstructured description page. Bots are near impossible for this.
See alsoP3570
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes

MotivationEdit

I would like to add as many of the courts listed on https://e-justice.europa.eu/ as possible. Each participating nation (not all EU members participate) describes how their court IDs are formed. They provide ECLI court IDs along with their respective court names in many languages (which would become Wikidata item labels). Parsonsandrew1 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Generally, I am in favour of such a property but I would suggest including the jurisdiction's prefix in the value, i.e. BVerfGECLI:DE:BVerfG. What do you think about that? --Nw520 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Nw520 That is a great point. Actually, after I submitted the proposal, I realized that some of the court codes might indeed be duplicates among countries, since they are only unique within the scope or namespace of their respective country. Including the jurisdiction code would provide additional clarity. For example, Czechia uses NS as its supreme court's ECLI code (Nejvyšší soud), and its conceivable that Slovakia would use the same (albeit unclear from their E-Justice page as of now). Of course, those wouldn't actually be collisions, but nonetheless, a little bit ambiguous.
    In no order, here are some other considerations:
    • The ECLI: prefix is a redundant part of the value
    • We would have to rename the property from "ECLI court code" to something akin to "ECLI prefix"
    Alternatively, we could create a second property, "ECLI country code", whereby Q56025 would store both DE and BVerfG as separate values in separate properties. This would enable SPARQL queries like "select courts where ECLI country code equals DE".
    • however, that would essentially duplicate the same information captured in P17 and P1001
    • . . . except that the country code is indeed different from P17 and P1001; it very-nearly but not entirely follows ISO 3166 alpha-2, and non-states can also be assigned a code. Wikipedia entry: [5]
    Frankly, I am indifferent in how it is implemented, so long as we capture this important information! Parsonsandrew1 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

mirror imageEdit

   Under discussion
Representsmirror image (Q2703478)
Data typequalifier?-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Domainproperty
Example 1Q30171963 ("based on")-> designates a left-right mirror flip. This is common in engravings of artworks.
Example 2Most examples of Q179744 (daguerrotypes) are a mirror image compared to real life, so it might be useful here.
Example 3MISSING
Planned useQ110141639 is an obvious option
Expected completenessHard to predict. I'd imagine we can hope for some degree of completeness, but there's always the risk of lost artworks
Robot and gadget jobsProbably not.

MotivationEdit

Felt weird to find the source of an engraving, note it was a copy, but - as engravings often were - mirror flipped, and to have no way to note this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

This seems like a Boolean property you are requesting? Generally I think that would be handled by something like has quality (P1552) mirror image (Q2703478). ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps as a qualifier to the based on (P144) statement. Jheald (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

he (she) is the author of the works of a personal art exhibition; he (she) is the author of the works of a personal photo exhibition; he (she) is the subject of a personal exhibitionEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionfor creative personalities who are the authors of collections of their own works of art
Representscreator of (Q78522641)
Data typeProperty
Domainauthor (Q482980); human (Q5)
Allowed valuescreator of (Q78522641)
Example 1Serhiy Vahanov (Q4102175)
Example 2Urs Fischer (Q503641)
Example 3Viktor Pinchuk (Q104033754)
Example 4Andrej Krasulin (Q502306)
Planned usefor personalities, creative people, creators of collections of their own works of art
Robot and gadget jobsno
See alsocontributed to creative work (P3919)

MotivationEdit

Important for some personalities — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

type of artefact(s)Edit

   Ready Create
Descriptionused to specify the type of artefact(s) contained in a collection or in an archival fonds
Data typeItem
Domainheritage (Q2434238)
Allowed valuesFor the performing arts domain, see for example: Types of artefacts documenting activities related to the performing arts (usage is however not limited to those values, as the property may be used to describe any type of heritage collection or archive).
Example 1Zbigniew Stok (Q111411407)archives at (P485)Zürich archives (Q27490306) / Qualifier: <type of artefact(s)> → Nachlass (Q3827332) (Source)
Example 2Schauspielhaus Zürich (Q40313234)archives at (P485)Zürich archives (Q27490306) / Qualifier: <type of artefact(s)> → archive (Q166118); programme (Q1508646); seasonal programme (Q51176294); photograph (Q125191); review (Q265158); periodical (Q1002697) (Source)
Example 3Q112055057documentation files at (P10527)Swiss Social Archives (Q2256734) / Qualifier: <type of artefact(s)> → annual report (Q699735) (Source)
Planned useThe property will be used in the context of the Wikiproject Performing Arts, for the creation of a "Worldcat" of the performing arts. In the longer run, it will be used for the description of a variety of heritage collections and archives.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Performing arts (Q59956276); WikiProject Archival Description (Q112120889)

MotivationEdit

We are involved in a project to bring artifacts from memory institutions into Wikidata. We need more accurate properties to find the artifacts in our app using SPARQL. Wir sind an einem Projekt beteiligt, bei welchem Artefakte von Gedächtnisinstitutionen in Wikidata gebracht werden sollen. Dabei brauchen wir genauerer Properties um die Artefakte in unserer App mittels SPARQL zu finden. Chumklar (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Very good Job @Chumklar Uthag1 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Chumklar Thank you for your effort. This is what we need for our Project. SavinoL1 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Beat EstermannThank you for your corrections. SavinoL1 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support This property will allow us to specify the contents of archival holdings, object collections or documentation files we refer to in Wikidata. --Beat Estermann (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support This would certainly allow more specific descriptions. Beireke1 (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fjjulien (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

number of versionsEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumber of versions of this product
Data typeQuantity
Domainitem
Example 1Im Nayeon (Q112066733)4
Example 2Horn (Q110901238)2
Example 3What Is Love? (Q51088400)2

MotivationEdit

The number of versions of a product - particularly KPOP albums - can be useful data to document without requiring users to make individual items for each of the versions which takes a significantly longer amount of time. Lectrician1 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

CrystalLemonade Xia Redalert2fan Baji Beetricks Lectrician1 Demss22 Daniel Mietchen CMQW EN-Jungwon   Notified participants of WikiProject Korean Entertainment

@CrystalLemonade @Redalert2fan @CMQW any thoughts? Lectrician1 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@HueMan1 @Nkon21 @Paper9oll @ReVeluv02 @EN-Jungwon maybe any of you would be interested in supporting? Lectrician1 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support --EN-Jungwon 15:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support --ReVeluv02 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

embargoed untilEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionqualifier of property P953 (full work available at URL) to indicate the date after which the full work can be viewed or downloaded; typically used on items for academic journal articles and academic theses
Representsembargo (Q5369476)
Data typePoint in time
Domainitem
Example 1Narrating a Tradition: Socialist Women with a Feminist Consciousness in the German Bildungsroman (Q112064781)full work available at URL (P953) = https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/703/embargoed until 17 April 2025
Example 2Virtual Clinical Trials in PET Imaging for Improved Diagnosis of and Evaluation of Therapies for Cancer (Q110719068)full work available at URL (P953) = http://hdl.handle.net/1773/37030embargoed until 22 September 2017
Example 3A Theoretical and Synthetic Investigation of New Donors for Organic Electro-optic Chromophores: Understanding the Effects of Structure and Substituents on Donor Strength (Q111076057)full work available at URL (P953) = http://hdl.handle.net/1773/37062embargoed until 12 September 2018
Example 4Magnetotheological Elastomeric Micropump Designs for Drug Delivery (Q112189940)full work available at URL (P953) = https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/2368embargoed until unknown value
Planned usewill incorporate into the creation of items for University of Washington electronic theses and dissertations
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoonline access status (P6954), access restriction status (P7228)

MotivationEdit

Some electronic dissertations and theses are open access, while others are embargoed for a particular period of time. The metadata in digital repositories often states the date that an embargo is lifted on a publication, and it would be very helpful to be able to include this information in Wikidata items so that users know if a URL provided will allow them to access or download the full work. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Support This could really help users (screen out ETDs that aren't available yet) and clean up workflows (we can add all ETDs for a semester and include an embargo date rather than trying to decide if we include ETDs that aren't available now or try to remember to go in and add them when they're no longer embargoed) --Emwille (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support Parobis1 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support I really like this idea and echo Emwille's sentiments. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support Seems like there are some very good use cases for such a property Riesengrey (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support Sheilatb (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support This seems very useful. Uncommon fritillary (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support cstrickler (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mozilla Hacks author IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a writer in the 'Mozilla Hacks' website
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpeople or organization
Allowed valuesI don't know exactly, but it seems to be lowercase letters, -, and possibly numbers. See https://www.google.com/search?q=site:https://hacks.mozilla.org/author/
Example 1Timothy B. Terriberry (Q14945815)tterriberry
Example 2Christopher Blizzard (Q5111960)blizzardmozillacom
Example 3Christian Heilmann (Q62107415)cheilmann
Example 4Mozilla Hacks (Q14945834)hacks
Sourcehttps://hacks.mozilla.org
Planned useI plan to add the Mozilla Hacks author ID of several authors.
Number of IDs in source~600 (according to google search results for urls matching the pattern)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886) - I guess, since new authors are added all the time
Formatter URLhttps://hacks.mozilla.org/author/$1/
See alsoHacker News username (P7171), Muck Rack journalist ID (P6005)
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes

MotivationEdit

I've been researching free software developers and how their tools are impacting the world. Along the way, I've added information about a few to wikidata. However, I noticed that one thing I can't add is the Mozilla Hacks author ID. It's a blog run by Mozilla that contains tons of great technical information and is often written to by impactful developers. So I'd like to add this property so it's easier to find some content by these developers. Apologies in advanced if anything in the above template is wrong, I'm relatively new to wikidata. Also, before realizing there was a process to create a property I made Mozilla Hacks author ID (Q112573477) which probably shouldn't exist. Thanks RayScript (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

themeEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiontheme of a product or place
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1Flip That (Q112251029): 2022 summer special mini album by Loonasummer (Q1313)
Example 2Lego City (Q2729822): Lego themecity (Q515)
Example 3Worlds of Fun (Q3570037): amusement park in Kansas City, Missouri, United StatesPeanuts (Q98149594)
See alsobased on (P144) inspired by (P941) main subject (P921) genre (P136)

MotivationEdit

We need a property for the themes of music albums as well as products such as clothing, toys, etc. and places. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment: Are there any reliable sources that can confirm such claims? —putnik 23:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Putnik

ZineWiki IDEdit

   Ready Create
RepresentsZineWiki (Q8072361)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Crypt of Cthulhu (Q5190615)Crypt_of_Cthulhu
Example 2Tryout (Q7848561)The_Tryout
Example 3Fantasy Fan (Q5434284)The_Fantasy_Fan
Sourcehttps://zinewiki.com/
Formatter URLhttps://zinewiki.com/wiki/$1

MotivationEdit

ZineWiki is an online encyclopedia collecting information about the independent press, zinesters, authors, artists, and distros. Hyju (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support We already have Fancyclopedia 3 ID (P9307) which covers science fiction fanzines, this would be complementary. Vicarage (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The ZineWiki ID would increase our coverage of independent publications. I added three examples and transcluded this proposal. Susmuffin (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Gitee usernameEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionusername on a website publishing user generated content
RepresentsGitee (Q97173031) username (Q15901043)
Data typeString
Domainhuman (Q5), organization (Q43229), project (Q170584), software (Q7397), technical standard (Q317623), event (Q1656682), programming language (Q9143)
Allowed valuesstring pattern (regex if possible)
Example 1Linux Foundation (Q858851)https://gitee.com/linuxfoundation
Example 2Tencent (Q860580)https://gitee.com/Tencent
Example 3WeBank (Q17500896)https://gitee.com/webank
Example 4OpenHarmony (Q102553047)https://gitee.com/openharmony
Sourcehttp://gitee.com/
Planned useimport 50 identifiers as a pilot for Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics
Number of IDs in sourceunsure, maybe 5 million as claimed by https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/21/china-is-building-its-github-alternative-gitee/ . Just guessing, maybe 1% of those merit import in Wikidata due to our already having related content about person, organization, software project, etc.
Expected completenessalways incomplete; I cannot foresee Wikidata ever wanting more than 10% of these identifiers
Formatter URLhttps://gitee.com/$1
See alsoGitHub username (P2037)

MotivationEdit

This identifier is useful for Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics and meta:WikiCite. It connects software developers, whether they are people, organizations, or groups, to the Gitee user account. One application of this is connecting mentions of software in academic papers to software developers who should get credit. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support With millions of users, this clearly merits a dedicated property, and it would probably be useful to have a companion property for the repositories too. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

this infobox/module uses this/these property/iesEdit

MotivationEdit

A bit like pages such as https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Page_utilisant_P1082 , it would be helpful to show properties used in this or that module/infobox to help maintenance on modules/infoboxes, maintenance that could be crosswikis. And in a readable way. Bouzinac💬✒️💛 15:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit